A systematic review of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF)

PURPOSE

The rate of elective lumbar fusion has continued to increase over the past two decades. However, there remains to be a consensus on the optimal fusion technique. This study aims to compare stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) with posterior fusion techniques in patients with spondylolisthesis and degenerative disc disease through a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed by searching the Cochrane Register of Trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE from inception to 2022. In the two-stage screening process, three reviewers independently reviewed titles and abstracts. The full-text reports of the remaining studies were then inspected for eligibility. Conflicts were resolved through consensus discussion. Two reviewers then extracted study data, assessed it for quality, and analysed it.

RESULTS

After the initial search and removal of duplicate records, 16,435 studies were screened. Twenty-one eligible studies (3686 patients) were ultimately included, which compared stand-alone ALIF with posterior approaches such as posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), and posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF). A meta-analysis showed surgical time and blood loss was significantly lower in ALIF than in TLIF/PLIF, but not in those who underwent PLF (p = 0.08). The length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in ALIF than in TLIF, but not in PLIF or PLF. Fusion rates were similar between the ALIF and posterior approaches. The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain were not significantly different between the ALIF and PLIF/TLIF groups. However, VAS back pain favoured ALIF over PLF at one year (n = 21, MD - 1.00, CI - 1.47, - 0.53), and at two years (2 studies, n = 67, MD - 1.39, CI - 1.67, - 1.11). The VAS leg pain scores (n = 46, MD 0.50, CI 0.12 to 0.88) at two years significantly favoured PLF. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores at one year were not significantly different between ALIF and the posterior approaches. At two years, ODI scores were also similar between the ALIF and the TLIF/PLIF. However, the ODI scores at two years (2 studies, n = 67, MD - 7.59, CI - 13.33, - 1.85) significantly favoured ALIF over PLF (I2 = 70%). The Japanese Orthopaedic Association Score (JOAS) for low back pain at one year (n = 21, MD - 0.50, CI - 0.78) and two years (two studies, n = 67, MD - 0.36, CI - 0.65, - 0.07) significantly favoured ALIF over PLF. No significant differences were found in leg pain at the 2-year follow-up. Adverse events displayed no significant differences between the ALIF and posterior approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

Stand-alone-ALIF demonstrated a shorter operative time and less blood loss than the PLIF/TLIF approach. Hospitalisation time is reduced with ALIF compared with TLIF. Patient-reported outcome measures were equivocal with PLIF or TLIF. VAS and JOAS, back pain, and ODI scores mainly favoured ALIF over PLF. Adverse events were equivocal between the ALIF and posterior fusion approaches.

Resistance decay in individuals after antibiotic exposure in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Antibiotic resistance is an urgent global problem, but reversibility is poorly understood. We examined the development and decay of bacterial resistance in community patients after antibiotic use.

METHODS

This was a systematic review and meta-analysis. PubMed, EMBASE and CENTRAL (from inception to May 2017) were searched, with forward and backward citation searches of the identified studies. We contacted authors whose data were unclear, and of abstract-only reports, for further information. We considered controlled or times-series studies of patients in the community who were given antibiotics and where the subsequent prevalence of resistant bacteria was measured. Two authors extracted risk of bias and data. The meta-analysis used a fixed-effects model.

RESULTS

Of 24,492 articles screened, five controlled and 20 time-series studies (total 16,353 children and 1461 adults) were eligible. Resistance in Streptococcus pneumoniae initially increased fourfold after penicillin-class antibiotic exposure [odds ratio (OR) 4.2, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.5-5.4], but this fell after 1 month (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.3-2.1). After cephalosporin-class antibiotics, resistance increased (OR 2.2, 95%CI 1.7-2.9); and fell to (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.2-2.3) at 1 month. After macrolide-class antibiotics, resistance increased (OR 3.8, 95% CI 1.9-7.6) and persisted for 1 month (OR 5.2, 95% CI 2.6-10.3) and 3 months (OR 8.1, 95% CI 4.6-14.2, from controlled studies and OR 2.3, 95% CI 0.6-9.4, from time-series studies). Resistance in Haemophilus influenzae after penicillins was not significantly increased (OR 1.3, 95% CI 0.9-1.9) initially but was at 1 month (OR 3.4, 95% CI 1.5-7.6), falling after 3 months (OR 1.0, 95% CI 0.5-2.2). Data were sparse for cephalosporins and macrolides. Resistance in Enterobacter increased post-exposure (OR 3.2, 95% CI 0.9-10.8, from controlled studies and OR 7.1, 95% CI 4.2-12, from time-series studies], but was lower after 1 month (OR 1.8, 95% CI 0.9-3.6).

CONCLUSIONS

Resistance generally increased soon after antibiotic use. For some antibiotic classes and bacteria, it partially diminished after 1 and 3 months, but longer-term data are lacking and urgently needed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42015025499 .

Miscellaneous treatments for antipsychotic-induced tardive dyskinesia

BACKGROUND

Antipsychotic (neuroleptic) medication is used extensively to treat people with chronic mental illnesses. Its use, however, is associated with adverse effects, including movement disorders such as tardive dyskinesia (TD) - a problem often seen as repetitive involuntary movements around the mouth and face. This review, one in a series examining the treatment of TD, covers miscellaneous treatments not covered elsewhere.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether drugs, hormone-, dietary-, or herb-supplements not covered in other Cochrane reviews on TD treatments, surgical interventions, electroconvulsive therapy, and mind-body therapies were effective and safe for people with antipsychotic-induced TD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials including trial registers (16 July 2015 and 26 April 2017), inspected references of all identified studies for further trials and contacted authors of trials for additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included reports if they were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) dealing with people with antipsychotic-induced TD and schizophrenia or other chronic mental illnesses who remained on their antipsychotic medication and had been randomly allocated to the interventions listed above versus placebo, no intervention, or any other intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently extracted data from these trials and we estimated risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assumed that people who left early had no improvement. We assessed risk of bias and created 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 31 RCTs of 24 interventions with 1278 participants; 22 of these trials were newly included in this 2017 update. Five trials are awaiting classification and seven trials are ongoing. All participants were adults with chronic psychiatric disorders, mostly schizophrenia, and antipsychotic-induced TD. Studies were primarily of short (three to six6 weeks) duration with small samples size (10 to 157 participants), and most (61%) were published more than 20 years ago. The overall risk of bias in these studies was unclear, mainly due to poor reporting of allocation concealment, generation of the sequence, and blinding.Nineteen of the 31 included studies reported on the primary outcome 'No clinically important improvement in TD symptoms'. Two studies found moderate-quality evidence of a benefit of the intervention compared with placebo: valbenazine (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.86, 1 RCT, n = 92) and extract of Ginkgo biloba (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.96, 1 RCT, n = 157), respectively. However, due to small sample sizes we cannot be certain of these effects.We consider the results for the remaining interventions to be inconclusive: Low- to very low-quality evidence of a benefit was found for buspirone (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.84, 1 RCT, n = 42), dihydrogenated ergot alkaloids (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.97, 1 RCT, n = 28), hypnosis or relaxation, (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.94, 1 study, n = 15), pemoline (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.77, 1 RCT, n = 46), promethazine (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.55, 1 RCT, n = 34), insulin (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.96, 1 RCT, n = 20), branched chain amino acids (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.00, 1 RCT, n = 52), and isocarboxazid (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.71, 1 RCT, n = 20). There was low- to very low-certainty evidence of no difference between intervention and placebo or no treatment for the following interventions: melatonin (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.12, 2 RCTs, n = 32), lithium (RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.79 to 3.23, 1 RCT, n = 11), ritanserin (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.43, 1 RCT, n = 10), selegiline (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.94, 1 RCT, n = 33), oestrogen (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.83, 1 RCT, n = 12), and gamma-linolenic acid (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.45, 1 RCT, n = 16).None of the included studies reported on the other primary outcome, 'no clinically significant extrapyramidal adverse effects'.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review has found that the use of valbenazine or extract of Ginkgo biloba may be effective in relieving the symptoms of tardive dyskinesia. However, since only one RCT has investigated each one of these compounds, we are awaiting results from ongoing trials to confirm these results. Results for the remaining interventions covered in this review must be considered inconclusive and these compounds probably should only be used within the context of a well-designed evaluative study.

Antipsychotic reduction and/or cessation and antipsychotics as specific treatments for tardive dyskinesia

BACKGROUND

Since the 1950s antipsychotic medication has been extensively used to treat people with chronic mental illnesses such as schizophrenia. These drugs, however, have also been associated with a wide range of adverse effects, including movement disorders such as tardive dyskinesia (TD) - a problem often seen as repetitive involuntary movements around the mouth and face. Various strategies have been examined to reduce a person's cumulative exposure to antipsychotics. These strategies include dose reduction, intermittent dosing strategies such as drug holidays, and antipsychotic cessation.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether a reduction or cessation of antipsychotic drugs is associated with a reduction in TD for people with schizophrenia (or other chronic mental illnesses) who have existing TD. Our secondary objective was to determine whether the use of specific antipsychotics for similar groups of people could be a treatment for TD that was already established.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated previous searches of Cochrane Schizophrenia's study-based Register of Trials including the registers of clinical trials (16 July 2015 and 26 April 2017). We searched references of all identified studies for further trial citations. We also contacted authors of trials for additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included reports if they assessed people with schizophrenia or other chronic mental illnesses who had established antipsychotic-induced TD, and had been randomly allocated to (a) antipsychotic maintenance versus antipsychotic cessation (placebo or no intervention), (b) antipsychotic maintenance versus antipsychotic reduction (including intermittent strategies), (c) specific antipsychotics for the treatment of TD versus placebo or no intervention, and (d) specific antipsychotics versus other antipsychotics or versus any other drugs for the treatment of TD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently extracted data from these trials and estimated risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assumed that people who dropped out had no improvement.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 RCTs with 711 participants; eight of these studies were newly included in this 2017 update. One trial is ongoing.There was low-quality evidence of a clear difference on no clinically important improvement in TD favouring switch to risperidone compared with antipsychotic cessation (with placebo) (1 RCT, 42 people, RR 0.45 CI 0.23 to 0.89, low-quality evidence). Because evidence was of very low quality for antipsychotic dose reduction versus antipsychotic maintenance (2 RCTs, 17 people, RR 0.42 95% CI 0.17 to 1.04, very low-quality evidence), and for switch to a new antipsychotic versus switch to another new antipsychotic (5 comparisons, 5 RCTs, 140 people, no meta-analysis, effects for all comparisons equivocal), we are uncertain about these effects. There was low-quality evidence of a significant difference on extrapyramidal symptoms: use of antiparkinsonism medication favouring switch to quetiapine compared with switch to haloperidol (1 RCT, 45 people, RR 0.45 CI 0.21 to 0.96, low-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference for switch to risperidone or haloperidol compared with antipsychotic cessation (with placebo) (RR 1 RCT, 48 people, RR 2.08 95% CI 0.74 to 5.86, low-quality evidence) and switch to risperidone compared with switch to haloperidol (RR 1 RCT, 37 people, RR 0.68 95% CI 0.34 to 1.35, very low-quality evidence).Trials also reported on secondary outcomes such as other TD symptom outcomes, other adverse events outcomes, mental state, and leaving the study early, but the quality of the evidence for all these outcomes was very low due mainly to small sample sizes, very wide 95% CIs, and risk of bias. No trials reported on social confidence, social inclusion, social networks, or personalised quality of life, outcomes that we designated as being important to patients.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Limited data from small studies using antipsychotic reduction or specific antipsychotic drugs as treatments for TD did not provide any convincing evidence of the value of these approaches. There is a need for larger trials of a longer duration to fully investigate this area.

Non-antipsychotic catecholaminergic drugs for antipsychotic-induced tardive dyskinesia

BACKGROUND

Tardive dyskinesia (TD) is a disabling movement disorder associated with the prolonged use of antipsychotic medication. Several strategies have been examined in the treatment of TD. Currently, however, there is no clear evidence of the effectiveness of these drugs in TD and they have been associated with many side effects. One particular strategy would be to use pharmaceutical agents which are known to influence the catecholaminergic system at various junctures.

OBJECTIVES

1. To determine the effects of any of the following drugs for antipsychotic-induced TD in people with schizophrenia or other chronic mental illnesses.i. Drugs which influence the noradrenergic system.ii. Dopamine receptor agonists.iii. Dopamine receptor antagonists.iv. Dopamine-depletor drugs.v. Drugs that increase the production or release of dopamine.2. To examine whether any improvement occurred with short periods of intervention (less than 6 weeks) and, if this did occur, whether this effect was maintained at longer periods of follow-up.3. To examine if there was a differential effect for the various compounds.4. To examine whether the use of non-antipsychotic catecholaminergic drugs are most effective in those with more recent onset TD (less than five years).

SEARCH METHODS

We retrieved 712 references from searching the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (July 2015 and April 2017). We also inspected references of all identified studies for further trials and contacted authors of trials for additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected studies if they were randomised controlled trials focusing on people with schizophrenia or other chronic mental illnesses and antipsychotic-induced tardive dyskinesia. We compared the use of catecholaminergic interventions versus placebo, no intervention, or any other intervention for the treatment of antipsychotic-induced tardive dyskinesia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently extracted data from these trials and we estimated risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assumed that people who left the studies early had no improvement.

MAIN RESULTS

There are 10 included trials (N = 261) published between 1973 and 2010; eight are new from the 2015 and 2017 update searches. Forty-eight studies are excluded. Participants were mostly chronically mentally ill inpatients in their 50s, and studies were primarily of short (2 to 6 weeks) duration. The overall risk of bias in these studies was unclear, mainly due to poor reporting of allocation concealment and generation of the sequence. Studies were also not clearly blinded and we are unsure if data are incomplete or selectively reported, or if other biases were operating.One small, three-arm trial found that both alpha-methyldopa (N = 20; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.80; low-quality evidence) and reserpine (N = 20; RR 0.52 95% CI 0.29 to 0.96; low-quality evidence) may lead to a clinically important improvement in tardive dyskinesia symptoms compared with placebo after 2 weeks' treatment, but found no evidence of a difference between alpha-methyldopa and reserpine (N = 20; RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.86; very low quality evidence). Another small trial compared tetrabenazine and haloperidol after 18 weeks' treatment and found no evidence of a difference on clinically important improvement in tardive dyskinesia symptoms (N = 13; RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.95; very low quality evidence). No study reported on adverse events.For remaining outcomes there was no evidence of a difference between any of the interventions: alpha-methyldopa versus placebo for deterioration of tardive dyskinesia symptoms (1 RCT; N = 20; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.02 to 7.32; very low quality evidence), celiprolol versus placebo for leaving the study early (1 RCT; N = 35; RR 5.28, 95% CI 0.27 to 102.58; very low quality evidence) and quality of life (1 RCT; N = 35; RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.12; very low quality evidence), alpha-methyldopa versus reserpine for deterioration of tardive dyskinesia symptoms (1 RCT; N = 20; not estimable, no reported events; very low quality evidence), reserpine or carbidopa/levodopa versus placebo for deterioration of tardive dyskinesia symptoms (2 RCTs; N = 37; RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.35 to 3.99; very low quality evidence), oxypertine versus placebo for deterioration of mental state (1 RCT; N = 42; RR 2.20, 95% CI 0.22 to 22.45; very low quality evidence), dopaminergic drugs (amantadine, bromocriptine, tiapride, oxypertine, carbidopa/levodopa) versus placebo for leaving the study early (6 RCTs; N = 163; RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.54; very low quality evidence), and tetrabenazine versus haloperidol for deterioration of tardive dyskinesia symptoms (1 RCT; N = 13; RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.09 to 14.92) and leaving the study early (1 RCT; N = 13; RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.00).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although there has been a large amount of research in this area, many studies were excluded due to inherent problems in the nature of their cross-over designs. Usually data are not reported before the cross-over and the nature of TD and its likely response to treatments make it imprudent to use this data. The review provides little usable information for service users or providers and more well-designed and well-reported studies are indicated.

Expediting citation screening using PICo-based title-only screening for identifying studies in scoping searches and rapid reviews

BACKGROUND

Citation screening for scoping searches and rapid review is time-consuming and inefficient, often requiring days or sometimes months to complete. We examined the reliability of PICo-based title-only screening using keyword searches based on the PICo elements-Participants, Interventions, and Comparators, but not the Outcomes.

METHODS

A convenience sample of 10 datasets, derived from the literature searches of completed systematic reviews, was used to test PICo-based title-only screening. Search terms for screening were generated from the inclusion criteria of each review, specifically the PICo elements-Participants, Interventions and Comparators. Synonyms for the PICo terms were sought, including alternatives for clinical conditions, trade names of generic drugs and abbreviations for clinical conditions, interventions and comparators. The MeSH database, Wikipedia, Google searches and online thesauri were used to assist generating terms. Title-only screening was performed by five reviewers independently in Endnote X7 reference management software using OR Boolean operator. Outcome measures were recall of included studies and the reduction in screening effort. Recall is the proportion of included studies retrieved using PICo title-only screening out of the total number of included studies in the original reviews. The percentage reduction in screening effort is the proportion of records not needing screening because the method eliminates them from the screen set.

RESULTS

Across the 10 reviews, the reduction in screening effort ranged from 11 to 78% with a median reduction of 53%. In nine systematic reviews, the recall of included studies was 100%. In one review (oxygen therapy), four of five reviewers missed the same included study (median recall 67%). A post hoc analysis was performed on the dataset with the lowest reduction in screening effort (11%), and it was rescreened using only the intervention and comparator keywords and omitting keywords for participants. The reduction in screening effort increased to 57%, and the recall of included studies was maintained (100%).

CONCLUSIONS

In this sample of datasets, PICo-based title-only screening was able to expedite citation screening for scoping searches and rapid reviews by reducing the number of citations needed to screen but requires a thorough workup of the potential synonyms and alternative terms. Further research which evaluates the feasibility of this technique with heterogeneous datasets in different fields would be useful to inform the generalisability of this technique.

Systematic review of the effects of care provided with and without diagnostic clinical prediction rules

BACKGROUND

Diagnostic clinical prediction rules (CPRs) are worthwhile if they improve patient outcomes or provide benefits such as reduced resource use, without harming patients. We conducted a systematic review to assess the effects of diagnostic CPRs on patient and process of care outcomes.

METHODS

We searched electronic databases and a trial registry and performed citation and reference checks, for randomised trials comparing a diagnostic strategy with and without a CPR. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias and similar studies meta-analysed.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven studies evaluating diagnostic CPRs for 14 conditions were included. A clinical management decision was the primary outcome in the majority of studies. Most studies were judged to be at high or uncertain risk of bias on ≥3 of 6 domains. Details of study interventions and implementation were infrequently reported.For suspected Group A Streptococcus throat infection, diagnostic CPRs reduced symptoms (1 study) and antibiotic prescriptions (5 studies, RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.99). For suspected cardiac chest pain, diagnostic strategies incorporating a CPR improved early discharge rates (1 study), decreased objective cardiac testing (1 study) and decreased hospitalisations (1 study). For ankle injuries, Ottawa Ankle Rules reduced radiography when used with clinical examination (1 study) but had no effect on length of stay as a triage test (1 study). For suspected acute appendicitis, CPRs had no effect on rates of perforated appendix (1 study) or the number of non-therapeutic operations (5 studies, RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.08). For suspected pneumonia, CPRs reduced antibiotic prescribing without unfavourable outcomes (3 studies). For children with possible serious bacterial infection, diagnostic CPRs did not improve process of care outcomes (3 studies).

CONCLUSION

There are few randomised trials of diagnostic CPRs, and patient outcomes are infrequently reported. Diagnostic CPRs had a positive effect on process outcomes in some clinical conditions; however, many studies were at unclear or high risk of bias and the results may be context specific. Future studies should seek to detail how the CPR might alter the diagnostic pathway, report effects on both patient and process outcomes, and improve reporting of the study interventions and implementation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The protocol for this review was not registered with PROSPERO, the international prospective register of systematic review protocols. The review was conceived and protocol prepared prior to the launch of PROSPERO in February 2011.

Droperidol for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation

BACKGROUND

People experiencing acute psychotic illnesses, especially those associated with agitated or violent behaviour, may require urgent pharmacological tranquillisation or sedation. Droperidol, a butyrophenone antipsychotic, has been used for this purpose in several countries.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the effects of droperidol, including its cost-effectiveness, when compared to placebo, other 'standard' or 'non-standard' treatments, or other forms of management of psychotic illness, in controlling acutely disturbed behaviour and reducing psychotic symptoms in people with schizophrenia-like illnesses.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated previous searches by searching the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Register (18 December 2015). We searched references of all identified studies for further trial citations and contacted authors of trials. We supplemented these electronic searches by handsearching reference lists and contacting both the pharmaceutical industry and relevant authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with useable data that compared droperidol to any other treatment for people acutely ill with suspected acute psychotic illnesses, including schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, mixed affective disorders, the manic phase of bipolar disorder or a brief psychotic episode.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For included studies, we assessed quality, risk of bias and extracted data. We excluded data when more than 50% of participants were lost to follow-up. For binary outcomes, we calculated standard estimates of risk ratio (RR) and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). We created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified four relevant trials from the update search (previous version of this review included only two trials). When droperidol was compared with placebo, for the outcome of tranquillisation or asleep by 30 minutes we found evidence of a clear difference (1 RCT, N = 227, RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.31, high-quality evidence). There was a clear demonstration of reduced risk of needing additional medication after 60 minutes for the droperidol group (1 RCT, N = 227, RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.85, high-quality evidence). There was no evidence that droperidol caused more cardiovascular arrhythmia (1 RCT, N = 227, RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.31, moderate-quality evidence) and respiratory airway obstruction (1 RCT, N = 227, RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.52, low-quality evidence) than placebo. For 'being ready for discharge', there was no clear difference between groups (1 RCT, N = 227, RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.48, high-quality evidence). There were no data for mental state and costs.Similarly, when droperidol was compared to haloperidol, for the outcome of tranquillisation or asleep by 30 minutes we found evidence of a clear difference (1 RCT, N = 228, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.09, high-quality evidence). There was a clear demonstration of reduced risk of needing additional medication after 60 minutes for participants in the droperidol group (2 RCTs, N = 255, RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.90, high-quality evidence). There was no evidence that droperidol caused more cardiovascular hypotension (1 RCT, N = 228, RR 2.80, 95% CI 0.30 to 26.49,moderate-quality evidence) and cardiovascular hypotension/desaturation (1 RCT, N = 228, RR 2.80, 95% CI 0.12 to 67.98, low-quality evidence) than haloperidol. There was no suggestion that use of droperidol was unsafe. For mental state, there was no evidence of clear difference between the efficacy of droperidol compared to haloperidol (Scale for Quantification of Psychotic Symptom Severity, 1 RCT, N = 40, mean difference (MD) 0.11, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.29, low-quality evidence). There were no data for service use and costs.Whereas, when droperidol was compared with midazolam, for the outcome of tranquillisation or asleep by 30 minutes we found droperidol to be less acutely tranquillising than midazolam (1 RCT, N = 153, RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.28, high-quality evidence). As regards the 'need for additional medication by 60 minutes after initial adequate sedation, we found an effect (1 RCT, N = 153, RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.20, moderate-quality evidence). In terms of adverse effects, we found no statistically significant differences between the two drugs for either airway obstruction (1 RCT, N = 153, RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.55, low-quality evidence) or respiratory hypoxia (1 RCT, N = 153, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.16 to 3.03, moderate-quality evidence) - but use of midazolam did result in three people (out of around 70) needing some sort of 'airway management' with no such events in the droperidol group. There were no data for mental state, service use and costs.Furthermore, when droperidol was compared to olanzapine, for the outcome of tranquillisation or asleep by any time point, we found no clear differences between the older drug (droperidol) and olanzapine (e.g. at 30 minutes: 1 RCT, N = 221, RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.11, high-quality evidence). There was a suggestion that participants allocated droperidol needed less additional medication after 60 minutes than people given the olanzapine (1 RCT, N = 221, RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.87, high-quality evidence). There was no evidence that droperidol caused more cardiovascular arrhythmia (1 RCT, N = 221, RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.88, moderate-quality evidence) and respiratory airway obstruction (1 RCT, N = 221, RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.20 to 4.72, low-quality evidence) than olanzapine. For 'being ready for discharge', there was no difference between groups (1 RCT, N = 221, RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.34, high-quality evidence). There were no data for mental state and costs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Previously, the use of droperidol was justified based on experience rather than evidence from well-conducted and reported randomised trials. However, this update found high-quality evidence with minimal risk of bias to support the use of droperidol for acute psychosis. Also, we found no evidence to suggest that droperidol should not be a treatment option for people acutely ill and disturbed because of serious mental illnesses.

Review article: Role of magnesium sulphate in the management of Irukandji syndrome: A systematic review

Signs of Irukandji syndrome (IS) suggest an underlying catecholamine storm with research demonstrating that Carukia barnesi venom causes a significant rise in adrenaline/noradrenaline serum levels. A systematic review was undertaken to ascertain the current evidence in treating IS with magnesium salts. A literature search was conducted using Scopus, Medline and ScienceDirect. Further articles were discarded via title description and/or abstract details. The remaining were read in full, and those identified as not having sufficient information regarding magnesium and patient outcomes were removed. Nine articles were identified. One article was a randomised controlled trial, which concluded that there appears to be no beneficial difference between those patients who received the magnesium sulphate (MgSO₄ ) and those who received the placebo and recommended against the use of MgSO₄ in IS. Of the remaining eight, one reported the failure of MgSO₄ and the remaining seven were case series reporting varying success in its use. This systematic review found insufficient evidence to support any clear recommendation regarding the use of magnesium, but nor was there clear evidence to recommend against its use in IS. Two case series describe significant reduction in key symptoms and hypertension but are a non-randomised albeit prospective series with the limitations accompanying this. The reporting of recrudescence of symptoms with reduction of dose does suggest a dose-response relationship. The evidence for the use of MgSO₄ is at best anecdotal, and further research is required to either confirm its benefit or confirm the randomised controlled trial.

A comparison of the performance of seven key bibliographic databases in identifying all relevant systematic reviews of interventions for hypertension

BACKGROUND

Bibliographic databases are the primary resource for identifying systematic reviews of health care interventions. Reliable retrieval of systematic reviews depends on the scope of indexing used by database providers. Therefore, searching one database may be insufficient, but it is unclear how many need to be searched. We sought to evaluate the performance of seven major bibliographic databases for the identification of systematic reviews for hypertension.

METHODS

We searched seven databases (Cochrane library, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), Epistemonikos, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), PubMed Health and Turning Research Into Practice (TRIP)) from 2003 to 2015 for systematic reviews of any intervention for hypertension. Citations retrieved were screened for relevance, coded and checked for screening consistency using a fuzzy text matching query. The performance of each database was assessed by calculating its sensitivity, precision, the number of missed reviews and the number of unique records retrieved.

RESULTS

Four hundred systematic reviews were identified for inclusion from 11,381 citations retrieved from seven databases. No single database identified all the retrieved systematic reviews for hypertension. EMBASE identified the most reviews (sensitivity 69 %) but also retrieved the most irrelevant citations with 7.2 % precision (Pr). The sensitivity of the Cochrane library was 60 %, DARE 57 %, MEDLINE 57 %, PubMed Health 53 %, Epistemonikos 49 % and TRIP 33 %. EMBASE contained the highest number of unique records (n = 43). The Cochrane library identified seven unique records and had the highest precision (Pr = 30 %), followed by Epistemonikos (n = 2, Pr = 19 %). No unique records were found in PubMed Health (Pr = 24 %) DARE (Pr = 21 %), TRIP (Pr = 10 %) or MEDLINE (Pr = 10 %). Searching EMBASE and the Cochrane library identified 88 % of all systematic reviews in the reference set, and searching the freely available databases (Cochrane, Epistemonikos, MEDLINE) identified 83 % of all the reviews. The databases were re-analysed after systematic reviews of non-conventional interventions (e.g. yoga, acupuncture) were removed. Similarly, no database identified all the retrieved systematic reviews. EMBASE identified the most relevant systematic reviews (sensitivity 73 %) but also retrieved the most irrelevant citations with Pr = 5 %. The sensitivity of the Cochrane database was 62 %, followed by MEDLINE (60 %), DARE (55 %), PubMed Health (54 %), Epistemonikos (50 %) and TRIP (31 %). The precision of the Cochrane library was the highest (20 %), followed by PubMed Health (Pr = 16 %), DARE (Pr = 13 %), Epistemonikos (Pr = 12 %), MEDLINE (Pr = 6 %), TRIP (Pr = 6 %) and EMBASE (Pr = 5 %). EMBASE contained the most unique records (n = 34). The Cochrane library identified seven unique records. The other databases held no unique records.

CONCLUSIONS

The coverage of bibliographic databases varies considerably due to differences in their scope and content. Researchers wishing to identify systematic reviews should not rely on one database but search multiple databases.

A systematic review of the public's knowledge and beliefs about antibiotic resistance

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to systematically review quantitative and qualitative studies on the public's knowledge and beliefs about antibiotic resistance.

METHODS

We searched four databases to July 2014, with no language or study design restrictions. Two reviewers independently extracted data. We calculated the median (IQR) of the proportion of participants who agreed with each statement and synthesized qualitative data by identifying emergent themes.

RESULTS

Of 3537 articles screened, 54 studies (41 quantitative, 3 mixed methods and 10 qualitative) were included (55 225 participants). Most studied adults (50; 93% studies) and were conducted in Europe (23; 43%), Asia (14; 26%) or North America (12; 22%). Some participants [median 70% (IQR 50%-84%); n = 8 studies] had heard of antibiotic resistance, but most [median 88% (IQR 86%-89%); n = 2 studies] believed it referred to changes in the human body. Many believed excessive antibiotic use [median 70% (IQR 59%-77%); n = 11 studies] and not completing antibiotic courses [median 62% (IQR 47%-77%); n = 8 studies] caused resistance. Most participants nominated reducing antibiotic use [median 74% (IQR 72%-85%); n = 4 studies] and discussing antibiotic resistance with their clinician (84%, n = 1 study) as strategies to reduce resistance. Qualitative data supported these findings and additionally identified that: participants believed they were at low risk from antibiotic resistance participants; largely attributed its development to the actions of others; and strategies to minimize resistance should be primarily aimed at clinicians.

CONCLUSIONS

The public have an incomplete understanding of antibiotic resistance and misperceptions about it and its causes and do not believe they contribute to its development. These data can be used to inform interventions to change the public's beliefs about how they can contribute to tackling this global issue.

Not in my backyard: a systematic review of clinicians' knowledge and beliefs about antibiotic resistance

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review clinicians' knowledge and beliefs about the importance and causes of antibiotic resistance, and strategies to reduce resistance.

METHODS

Four databases were searched (until July 2014), without restrictions on language, setting or study design. Fixed responses (from surveys) were grouped into categories. The proportion of participants who agreed with each category was expressed as median, percentage and IQR. Qualitative data were coded into emergent themes. Quantitative categories and qualitative themes were grouped into four overarching categories that emerged from the data.

RESULTS

There were 57 included studies (38 quantitative, 14 qualitative, 5 mixed methods) of 11593 clinicians. Most clinicians (69%, IQR 63%-72%, n=5 studies) had heard of antibiotic resistance and 98% (IQR 93%-99%, n=5 studies) believed it was serious. The proportion who believed it was a problem for their practice (67%, IQR 65%-74%, n=13 studies) was smaller than the proportion who believed it was a problem globally (89%, IQR 85%-97%, n=5 studies) or nationally (92%, IQR 88%-95%, n=21 studies). Most believed excessive antibiotic use (97%, IQR 91%-98%, n=12 studies) and patient non-adherence (90%, IQR 82%-92%, n=7 studies) caused resistance. Most knew of strategies to reduce resistance (e.g. clinician education, 90%, IQR 85%-96%, n=7 studies). Qualitative findings support these data: they attributed responsibility for antibiotic resistance to patients, other countries and healthcare settings; resistance was considered a low priority and a distant consequence of antibiotic prescribing.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians believe antibiotic resistance is a serious problem, but think it is caused by others. This needs to be accommodated in interventions to reduce antibiotic resistance.

Faster title and abstract screening? Evaluating Abstrackr, a semi-automated online screening program for systematic reviewers

BACKGROUND

Citation screening is time consuming and inefficient. We sought to evaluate the performance of Abstrackr, a semi-automated online tool for predictive title and abstract screening.

METHODS

Four systematic reviews (aHUS, dietary fibre, ECHO, rituximab) were used to evaluate Abstrackr. Citations from electronic searches of biomedical databases were imported into Abstrackr, and titles and abstracts were screened and included or excluded according to the entry criteria. This process was continued until Abstrackr predicted and classified the remaining unscreened citations as relevant or irrelevant. These classification predictions were checked for accuracy against the original review decisions. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the effects of including case reports in the aHUS dataset whilst screening and the effects of using larger imbalanced datasets with the ECHO dataset. The performance of Abstrackr was calculated according to the number of relevant studies missed, the workload saving, the false negative rate, and the precision of the algorithm to correctly predict relevant studies for inclusion, i.e. further full text inspection.

RESULTS

Of the unscreened citations, Abstrackr's prediction algorithm correctly identified all relevant citations for the rituximab and dietary fibre reviews. However, one relevant citation in both the aHUS and ECHO reviews was incorrectly predicted as not relevant. The workload saving achieved with Abstrackr varied depending on the complexity and size of the reviews (9 % rituximab, 40 % dietary fibre, 67 % aHUS, and 57 % ECHO). The proportion of citations predicted as relevant, and therefore, warranting further full text inspection (i.e. the precision of the prediction) ranged from 16 % (aHUS) to 45 % (rituximab) and was affected by the complexity of the reviews. The false negative rate ranged from 2.4 to 21.7 %. Sensitivity analysis performed on the aHUS dataset increased the precision from 16 to 25 % and increased the workload saving by 10 % but increased the number of relevant studies missed. Sensitivity analysis performed with the larger ECHO dataset increased the workload saving (80 %) but reduced the precision (6.8 %) and increased the number of missed citations.

CONCLUSIONS

Semi-automated title and abstract screening with Abstrackr has the potential to save time and reduce research waste.

Cannabis and schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Many people with schizophrenia smoke cannabis, and it is unclear why a large proportion do so and if the effects are harmful or beneficial. It is also unclear what the best method is to allow people with schizophrenia to alter their cannabis intake.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of specific psychological treatments for cannabis reduction in people with schizophrenia. To assess the effects of antipsychotics for cannabis reduction in people with schizophrenia. To assess the effects of cannabinoids (cannabis-related chemical compounds derived from cannabis or manufactured) for symptom reduction in people with schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (August 2013) and all references of articles selected for further relevant trials. We contacted the first author of included studies for unpublished trials or data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomized controlled trials involving cannabinoids and schizophrenia/schizophrenia-like illnesses, which assessed: (1) treatments to reduce cannabis use in people with schizophrenia and (2) the effects of cannabinoids on people with schizophrenia.

CONCLUSIONS

Results are limited and inconclusive due to the small number and size of randomized controlled trials available and quality of data reporting within these trials. Currently, there is no evidence to demonstrate that one type of adjunct psychological therapy or one type of drug therapy is more effective than another. There is also insufficient evidence to show that cannabidiol has an antipsychotic effect.

Fluphenazine decanoate (depot) and enanthate for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Intramuscular injections (depot preparations) offer an advantage over oral medication for treating schizophrenia by reducing poor compliance. The benefits gained by long-acting preparations, however, may be offset by a higher incidence of adverse effects.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of fluphenazine decanoate and enanthate versus oral anti-psychotics and other depot neuroleptic preparations for individuals with schizophrenia in terms of clinical, social and economic outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (February 2011 and October 16, 2013), which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered all relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on people with schizophrenia comparing fluphenazine decanoate or enanthate with placebo or oral anti-psychotics or other depot preparations.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We reliably selected, assessed the quality, and extracted data of the included studies. For dichotomous data, we estimated risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Analysis was by intention-to-treat. We used the mean difference (MD) for normal continuous data. We excluded continuous data if loss to follow-up was greater than 50%. Tests of heterogeneity and for publication bias were undertaken. We used a fixed-effect model for all analyses unless there was high heterogeneity. For this update. we assessed risk of bias of included studies and used the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to create a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

This review now includes 73 randomised studies, with 4870 participants. Overall, the quality of the evidence is low to very low.Compared with placebo, use of fluphenazine decanoate does not result in any significant differences in death, nor does it reduce relapse over six months to one year, but one longer-term study found that relapse was significantly reduced in the fluphenazine arm (n = 54, 1 RCT, RR 0.35, CI 0.19 to 0.64, very low quality evidence). A very similar number of people left the medium-term studies (six months to one year) early in the fluphenazine decanoate (24%) and placebo (19%) groups, however, a two-year study significantly favoured fluphenazine decanoate (n = 54, 1 RCT, RR 0.47, CI 0.23 to 0.96, very low quality evidence). No significant differences were found in mental state measured on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) or in extrapyramidal adverse effects, although these outcomes were only reported in one small study each. No study comparing fluphenazine decanoate with placebo reported clinically significant changes in global state or hospital admissions.Fluphenazine decanoate does not reduce relapse more than oral neuroleptics in the medium term (n = 419, 6 RCTs, RR 1.46 CI 0.75 to 2.83, very low quality evidence). A small study found no difference in clinically significant changes in global state. No difference in the number of participants leaving the study early was found between fluphenazine decanoate (17%) and oral neuroleptics (18%), and no significant differences were found in mental state measured on the BPRS. Extrapyramidal adverse effects were significantly less for people receiving fluphenazine decanoate compared with oral neuroleptics (n = 259, 3 RCTs, RR 0.47 CI 0.24 to 0.91, very low quality evidence). No study comparing fluphenazine decanoate with oral neuroleptics reported death or hospital admissions.No significant difference in relapse rates in the medium term between fluphenazine decanoate and fluphenazine enanthate was found (n = 49, 1 RCT, RR 2.43, CI 0.71 to 8.32, very low quality evidence), immediate- and short-term studies were also equivocal. One small study reported the number of participants leaving the study early (29% versus 12%) and mental state measured on the BPRS and found no significant difference for either outcome. No significant difference was found in extrapyramidal adverse effects between fluphenazine decanoate and fluphenazine enanthate. No study comparing fluphenazine decanoate with fluphenazine enanthate reported death, clinically significant changes in global state or hospital admissions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are more data for fluphenazine decanoate than for the enanthate ester. Both are effective antipsychotic preparations. Fluphenazine decanoate produced fewer movement disorder effects than other oral antipsychotics but data were of low quality, and overall, adverse effect data were equivocal. In the context of trials, there is little advantage of these depots over oral medications in terms of compliance but this is unlikely to be applicable to everyday clinical practice.

Better duplicate detection for systematic reviewers: evaluation of Systematic Review Assistant-Deduplication Module

BACKGROUND

A major problem arising from searching across bibliographic databases is the retrieval of duplicate citations. Removing such duplicates is an essential task to ensure systematic reviewers do not waste time screening the same citation multiple times. Although reference management software use algorithms to remove duplicate records, this is only partially successful and necessitates removing the remaining duplicates manually. This time-consuming task leads to wasted resources. We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of a newly developed deduplication program against EndNote.

METHODS

A literature search of 1,988 citations was manually inspected and duplicate citations identified and coded to create a benchmark dataset. The Systematic Review Assistant-Deduplication Module (SRA-DM) was iteratively developed and tested using the benchmark dataset and compared with EndNote's default one step auto-deduplication process matching on ('author', 'year', 'title'). The accuracy of deduplication was reported by calculating the sensitivity and specificity. Further validation tests, with three additional benchmarked literature searches comprising a total of 4,563 citations were performed to determine the reliability of the SRA-DM algorithm.

RESULTS

The sensitivity (84%) and specificity (100%) of the SRA-DM was superior to EndNote (sensitivity 51%, specificity 99.83%). Validation testing on three additional biomedical literature searches demonstrated that SRA-DM consistently achieved higher sensitivity than EndNote (90% vs 63%), (84% vs 73%) and (84% vs 64%). Furthermore, the specificity of SRA-DM was 100%, whereas the specificity of EndNote was imperfect (average 99.75%) with some unique records wrongly assigned as duplicates. Overall, there was a 42.86% increase in the number of duplicates records detected with SRA-DM compared with EndNote auto-deduplication.

CONCLUSIONS

The Systematic Review Assistant-Deduplication Module offers users a reliable program to remove duplicate records with greater sensitivity and specificity than EndNote. This application will save researchers and information specialists time and avoid research waste. The deduplication program is freely available online.

Routine echocardiography in the management of stroke and transient ischaemic attack: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Identification of the underlying cause of stroke and transient ischaemic attack (TIA) is important so that preventative therapy can be used to reduce the risk of recurrence. Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and transoesophageal echocardiography (TOE) are diagnostic tools used to identify those cardiac sources of stroke that may respond to treatment.

OBJECTIVES

(1) Undertake systematic reviews to determine (a) the prevalence of cardiac sources of stroke and TIA and (b) the diagnostic accuracy of echocardiography; (2) undertake a survey to ascertain which guidelines and management strategies are used by UK stroke centres; and (3) evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the addition of TTE to the routine assessment of patients who have had a first-episode diagnosed stroke or TIA in the UK.

DATA SOURCES

Bibliographic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database were searched from inception to December 2010 (prevalence) or September 2011 (diagnostic accuracy). Bibliographies of related papers were screened and experts were contacted to identify additional published and unpublished references.

REVIEW METHODS

The systematic reviews were undertaken according to the general principles recommended in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. A decision-analytic model was developed to estimate the costs and quality-adjusted life-years accrued by each potential echocardiography strategy in the management of stroke and TIA for patients aged 45, 55 and 65 years. The model took a lifetime horizon and a NHS perspective. Costs and health benefits were discounted at an annual rate of 3.5%. Evidence to enable modelling was found for left atrial thrombus only. The cost-effectiveness of echocardiography is therefore based on all stroke patients being tested but only those with a left atrial thrombus receiving the benefits and harms of treatment. To describe current NHS stroke management practice we provided a questionnaire to the lead clinician of all stroke units in the UK.

RESULTS

The searches identified 17,278 citations for the systematic review of the prevalence of potential cardiac sources of stroke and TIA, of which 65 studies were included. Patent foramen ovale was the most frequently reported pathology, followed by atrial septal aneurysm and mitral valve prolapse, with prevalence ranging from 0.25% to 73%, from 0.4% to 28% and from 0% to 31.6% respectively. For the systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of echocardiography, 16,504 citations were identified, of which 51 studies were included. The pooled sensitivity to detect left atrial thrombus in three studies using transthoracic echocardiography in second harmonic imaging mode (TTEh) was 0.79 [95% credible interval (CrI) 0.47 to 0.94], with a pooled specificity of 1.00 (95% CrI 0.99 to 1.00) compared with TOE. Differences in the diagnostic accuracy of tests occurred mostly in their sensitivity to detect cardiac sources of stroke. No adverse events data were reported. Our principal economic finding is that TTEh is a cost-effective use of NHS resources compared with TOE when clinicians deem it the most appropriate test. The survey showed that the decision-making process for the management of stroke and TIA is very complex and varies considerably by site. It is clear that to accurately describe current management practice a very sophisticated questionnaire would be required.

LIMITATIONS

The prevalence review highlights the difficulties that clinicians face when identifying the cause of cardioembolic stroke (the limitations of the tests, the confounding comorbidities and the inherent mobility of blood clots). The diagnostic accuracy review was limited by the small number of studies reporting data or because studies included too few participants with a cardiac pathology, leaving a large degree of uncertainty about the underlying diagnostic accuracy. The economic model has limitations because of the limited data available for important parameters such as the efficacy of treatment in reducing stroke recurrence.

CONCLUSION

The economic analysis indicates that, in those cases in which TTEh is deemed the most appropriate test, it is a cost-effective use of NHS resources. However, this analysis has highlighted a lack of evidence in several areas and the results of the economic evaluation should therefore be treated with caution. There is a need for further evaluation of current echocardiography technologies, the causal associations between potential risk factors and stroke and whether or not anticoagulation therapies prevent recurrent stroke. Studies attempting to establish the prevalence of cardiac sources of stroke should identify all potential risk factors, rule out those that are not relevant and grade the findings according to risk. Research is also needed to reduce the uncertainty around the estimates of the sensitivity and specificity of TTEh and TOE, singly and in combination, in detecting treatable cardiac abnormalities compared with the 'gold standard' in each pathology.

STUDY REGISTRATION

The study is registered as PROSPERO no. CRD42011001353.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Cannabis and schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Schizophrenia is a mental illness causing disordered beliefs, ideas and sensations. Many people with schizophrenia smoke cannabis, and it is unclear why a large proportion do so and if the effects are harmful or beneficial. It is also unclear what the best method is to allow people with schizophrenia to alter their cannabis intake.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of specific psychological treatments for cannabis reduction in people with schizophrenia.To assess the effects of antipsychotics for cannabis reduction in people with schizophrenia.To assess the effects of cannabinoids (cannabis related chemical compounds derived from cannabis or manufactured) for symptom reduction in people with schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register, 12 August 2013, which is based on regular searches of BIOSIS, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PUBMED and PsycINFO.We searched all references of articles selected for inclusion for further relevant trials. We contacted the first author of included studies for unpublished trials or data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials involving cannabinoids and schizophrenia/schizophrenia-like illnesses, which assessed:1) treatments to reduce cannabis use in people with schizophrenia;2) the effects of cannabinoids on people with schizophrenia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently inspected citations, selected papers and then re-inspected the studies if there were discrepancies, and extracted data. For dichotomous data we calculated risk ratios (RR) and for continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis, based on a fixed-effect model. We excluded data if loss to follow-up was greater than 50%. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and used GRADE to rate the quality of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified eight randomised trials, involving 530 participants, which met our selection criteria.For the cannabis reduction studies no one treatment showed superiority for reduction in cannabis use. Overall, data were poorly reported for many outcomes of interest. Our main outcomes of interest were medium-term data for cannabis use, global state, mental state, global functioning, adverse events, leaving the study early and satisfaction with treatment. 1. Reduction in cannabis use: adjunct psychological therapies (specifically about cannabis and psychosis) versus treatment as usualResults from one small study showed people receiving adjunct psychological therapies specifically about cannabis and psychosis were no more likely to reduce their intake than those receiving treatment as usual (n = 54, 1 RCT, MD -0.10, 95% CI -2.44 to 2.24, moderate quality evidence). Results for other main outcomes at medium term were also equivocal. No difference in mental state measured on the PANSS positive were observed between groups (n = 62, 1 RCT, MD -0.30 95% CI -2.55 to 1.95, moderate quality evidence). Nor for the outcome of general functioning measured using the World Health Organization Quality of Life BREF (n = 49, 1 RCT, MD 0.90 95% CI -1.15 to 2.95, moderate quality evidence). No data were reported for the other main outcomes of interest 2. Reduction in cannabis use: adjunct psychological therapy (specifically about cannabis and psychosis) versus adjunct non-specific psychoeducation One study compared specific psychological therapy aimed at cannabis reduction with general psychological therapy. At three-month follow-up, the use of cannabis in the previous four weeks was similar between treatment groups (n = 47, 1 RCT, RR 1.04 95% CI 0.62 to 1.74, moderate quality evidence). Again, at a medium-term follow-up, the average mental state scores from the Brief Pscychiatric Rating Scale-Expanded were similar between groups (n = 47, 1 RCT, MD 3.60 95% CI - 5.61 to 12.81, moderate quality evidence). No data were reported for the other main outcomes of interest: global state, general functioning, adverse events, leaving the study early and satisfaction with treatment. 3. Reduction in cannabis use: antipsychotic versus antipsychotic In a small trial comparing effectiveness of olanzapine versus risperidone for cannabis reduction, there was no difference between groups at medium-term follow-up (n = 16, 1 RCT, RR 1.80 95% CI 0.52 to 6.22, moderate quality evidence). The number of participants leaving the study early at medium term was also similar (n = 28, 1 RCT, RR 0.50 95% CI 0.19 to 1.29, moderate quality evidence). Mental state data were reported, however they were reported within the short term and no difference was observed. No data were reported for global state, general functioning, and satisfaction with treatment.With regards to adverse effects data, no study reported medium-term data. Short-term data were presented but overall, no real differences between treatment groups were observed for adverse effects. 4. Cannabinoid as treatment: cannabidiol versus amisulprideAgain, no data were reported for any of the main outcomes of interest at medium term. There were short-term data reported for mental state using the BPRS and PANSS, no overall differences in mental state were observed between treatment groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Results are limited and inconclusive due to the small number and size of randomised controlled trials available and quality of data reporting within these trials. More research is needed to a) explore the effects of adjunct psychological therapy that is specifically about cannabis and psychosis as currently there is no evidence for any novel intervention being better than standard treatment,for those that use cannabis and have schizophrenia b) decide the most effective drug treatment in treating those that use cannabis and have schizophrenia, and c) assess the effectiveness of cannabidiol in treating schizophrenia. Currently evidence is insufficient to show cannabidiol has an antipsychotic effect.

The safety of intravitreal bevacizumab monotherapy in adult ophthalmic conditions: systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety of intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) as a monotherapy and to evaluate the relationship between quality of treatment and adverse events.

DATA SOURCES

Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE, MEDLINE in-process, Ovid EMBASE and Toxicology Literature Online (TOXLINE) from January 2009 to May 2012. Studies included in an earlier systematic review were also assessed for inclusion.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled trials or observational studies including ≥10 participants reporting adverse events data following IVB monotherapy as a primary treatment in patients (aged 18 years or more) with any eye condition were included.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

Study selection was undertaken independently by a minimum of two reviewers using pre-defined criteria. Data abstraction and quality assessment were performed by one reviewer, and then checked by a second reviewer. Study quality was assessed for only RCTs in accordance to the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Additional items relating to safety data were also assessed. Results were tabulated or meta-analysed as appropriate.

RESULTS

22 RCTs and 67 observational studies were included. Only two RCTs reported valid safety data. Rates of serious adverse events following treatment were low. There was insufficient data to explore the relationship between the incidence of adverse events and quality of IVB injection.

LIMITATIONS

A majority of relevant existing studies were characterised by small sample sizes, unclear diagnostic criteria and reporting of safety outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS

Available evidence demonstrates low rates of serious local and systemic adverse events following treatment. However, the role of IVB quality in the incidence of adverse events remains unclear. Robust evidence is needed to examine the relationship between the incidence of adverse events and variables such as injection techniques, pre-existing risk factors (eg, immunosuppression, cross-contamination) and quality of IVB treatment.

Chlorpromazine versus placebo for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Chlorpromazine, formulated in the 1950s, remains a benchmark treatment for people with schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects of chlorpromazine compared with placebo, for the treatment of schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (15 May 2012). We also searched references of all identified studies for further trial citations. We contacted pharmaceutical companies and authors of trials for additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing chlorpromazine with placebo for people with schizophrenia and non-affective serious/chronic mental illness irrespective of mode of diagnosis. Primary outcomes of interest were death, violent behaviours, overall improvement, relapse and satisfaction with care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently inspected citations and abstracts, ordered papers, re-inspected and quality assessed these. We analysed dichotomous data using risk ratio (RR) and estimated the 95% confidence interval (CI) around this. We excluded continuous data if more than 50% of participants were lost to follow-up. Where continuous data were included, we analysed this data using mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval. We used a fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We inspected over 1100 electronic records. The review currently includes 315 excluded studies and 55 included studies. The quality of the evidence is very low. We found chlorpromazine reduced the number of participants experiencing a relapse compared with placebo during six months to two years follow-up (n = 512, 3 RCTs, RR 0.65 CI 0.47 to 0.90), but data were heterogeneous. No difference was found in relapse rates in the short, medium or long term over two years, although data were also heterogeneous. We found chlorpromazine provided a global improvement in a person's symptoms and functioning (n = 1164, 14 RCTs, RR 0.71 CI 0.58 to 0.86). Fewer people allocated to chlorpromazine left trials early ( n = 1831, 27 RCTs, RR 0.64 CI 0.53 to 0.78) compared with placebo. There are many adverse effects. Chlorpromazine is clearly sedating (n = 1627, 23 RCTs, RR 2.79 CI 2.25 to 3.45), it increases a person's chances of experiencing acute movement disorders (n = 942, 5 RCTs, RR 3.47 CI 1.50 to 8.03) and parkinsonism (n = 1468, 15 RCTs, RR 2.11 CI 1.59 to 2.80). Akathisia did not occur more often in the chlorpromazine group than placebo. Chlorpromazine clearly causes a lowering of blood pressure with accompanying dizziness (n = 1488, 18 RCTs, RR 2.38 CI 1.74 to 3.25) and considerable weight gain (n = 165, 5 RCTs, RR 4.92 CI 2.32 to 10.43).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results of this review confirm much that clinicians and recipients of care already know but aim to provide quantification to support clinical impression. Chlorpromazine's global position as a 'benchmark' treatment for psychoses is not threatened by the findings of this review. Chlorpromazine, in common use for half a century, is a well-established but imperfect treatment. Judicious use of this best available evidence should lead to improved evidence-based decision making by clinicians, carers and patients.

A systematic review of eculizumab for atypical haemolytic uraemic syndrome (aHUS)

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy and safety of eculizumab for patients with atypical haemolytic uraemic syndrome (aHUS), compared with current treatment options.

DESIGN

A systematic review was performed according to the general principles of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. All study designs were included, except case histories.

PARTICIPANTS

All patients diagnosed with aHUS were included; no age restrictions were used.

INTERVENTIONS

Eculizumab compared with current treatment options.

IDENTIFICATION OF STUDIES

12 databases were searched. Additional searches were performed through the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Electronic Medicines Compendium websites, Google internet searches and contacting clinical experts. Reference lists of relevant articles were checked for additional studies.

RESULTS

2 small, uncontrolled prospective multinational, multicentre studies and one small uncontrolled multinational, multicentre retrospective study were included. No meta-analyses were performed. Compared with baseline measures, thrombotic microangiopathy event-free status was achieved in 84% of patients in the prospective studies. Adverse events, as documented by enrolling investigators were frequent, with upper-respiratory tract infection affecting a third of patients. No deaths or episodes of meningitis or meningococcal septicaemia occurred in the prospective studies. Results of the study extension phases up to 114 weeks indicate that the benefits of the treatment are sustained.

CONCLUSIONS

Eculizumab is clinically effective for the treatment of aHUS. Further research is needed to evaluate eculizumab, ideally using patient-related clinical outcomes. If randomised studies are not feasible, study investigators should ensure that the threat of bias is minimised in future studies of eculizumab with respect to the reporting of patient recruitment and selection.

Haloperidol dose for the acute phase of schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Haloperidol is a benchmark, accessible antipsychotic drug against which the effects of newer treatments are gauged.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the best range of doses for haloperidol for the treatment of people acutely ill with schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (February 2010), which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected studies if they involved people being treated for acute schizophrenia, randomised to two or more dose ranges of non-depot haloperidol, and if they reported clinically meaningful outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For this update, we inspected all citations and independently re-inspected a sample of citations in order to ensure reliable selection. We resolved any disagreement by discussion, and where doubt remained, we acquired the full-text article for further inspection. We then ordered papers, and reliably re-inspected and quality assessed the full reports, and extracted data. For homogeneous dichotomous data, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis. We assumed that people who left the study early or were lost to follow-up had a negative outcome. We calculated mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes that reported ITT, last observation carried forward (LOCF) data. We excluded data if loss to follow-up was greater than 50%.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 19 trials with 19 different randomised dose comparisons. No studies reported data on relapse rates or quality of life and only one compared low dose (> 1.5 to 3 mg/day) haloperidol to higher dose ranges. Using standard lower dose (> 3 to 7.5 mg/day) did not result in loss of efficacy (no clinically important improvement in global state, versus standard higher dose (> 7.5 to 15 mg/day, n = 48, 1 RCT, RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.7 to 1.8, very-low-quality evidence); versus high dose (> 15 to 35 mg/day, n = 81, 2 RCTs, RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.8 to 1.2, very-low-quality evidence). Doses of haloperidol in the range of > 3 to 7.5 mg/day had a lower rate of development of clinically significant extrapyramidal adverse effects than higher doses (clinically significant extrapyramidal adverse effects, versus standard higher dose, n = 64, 2 RCTs, RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.1, very-low-quality evidence); versus high dose, n = 144, 3 RCTs, RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.5 to 0.8, very-low-quality evidence; versus very high dose (> 35 mg/day, n = 86, 2 RCTs, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.5 to 1.1, very-low-quality evidence). None of the other comparisons between dose ranges yielded statistically significant differences, but several, particularly with lower dose ranges, were underpowered to detect clinically meaningful differences.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Noresults were conclusive and all were based on small, short studies of limited quality. However, it would be understandable if clinicians were cautious in prescribing doses in excess of 7.5 mg/day of haloperidol to a person with uncomplicated acute schizophrenia, and if people with schizophrenia were equally reticent to take greater doses. Further research is needed regarding the efficacy and tolerability of the lower dose ranges, especially > 1.5 to 3 mg/day.

Benzodiazepines for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation

BACKGROUND

Acute psychotic illness, especially when associated with agitated or violent behaviour, can require urgent pharmacological tranquillisation or sedation. In several countries, clinicians often use benzodiazepines (either alone or in combination with antipsychotics) for this outcome.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the effects of benzodiazepines, alone or in combination with antipsychotics, when compared with placebo or antipsychotics, alone or in combination with antihistamines, to control disturbed behaviour and reduce psychotic symptoms.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register (January 2012), inspected reference lists of included and excluded studies and contacted authors of relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing benzodiazepines alone or in combination with any antipsychotics, versus antipsychotics alone or in combination with any other antipsychotics, benzodiazepines or antihistamines, for people with acute psychotic illnesses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We reliably selected studies, quality assessed them and extracted data. For binary outcomes, we calculated standard estimates of relative risk (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a fixed-effect model. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) between groups. If heterogeneity was identified, this was explored using a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 trials with a total of n = 1968 participants. There was no significant difference for most outcomes in the one trial that compared benzodiazepines with placebo, although there was a higher risk of no improvement in people receiving placebo in the medium term (one to 48 hours) (n = 102, 1 RCT, RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.97, very low quality evidence). There was no difference in the number of participants who had not improved in the medium term when benzodiazepines were compared with antipsychotics (n = 308, 5 RCTs, RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.42, low quality evidence); however, people receiving benzodiazepines were less likely to experience extrapyramidal effects (EPS) in the medium term (n = 536, 8 RCTs, RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.39, moderate quality of evidence). Data comparing combined benzodiazepines and antipsychotics versus benzodiazepines alone did not yield any significant results. When comparing combined benzodiazepines/antipsychotics (all studies compared haloperidol) with the same antipsychotics alone (haloperidol), there was no difference between groups in improvement in the medium term (n = 155, 3 RCTs, RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.70, very low quality evidence) but sedation was more likely in people who received the combination therapy (n = 172, 3 RCTs, RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.67, very low quality evidence). However, more participants receiving combined benzodiazepines and haloperidol had not improved by medium term when compared to participants receiving olanzapine (n = 60,1 RCT, RR 25.00, 95% CI 1.55 to 403.99, very low quality evidence) or ziprasidone (n = 60, 1 RCT, RR 4.00, 95% CI 1.25 to 12.75 very low quality evidence). When haloperidol and midazolam were compared with olanzapine, there was some evidence the combination was superior in terms of improvement, sedation and behaviour.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence from trials for the use of benzodiazepines alone is not good. There were relatively little good data and most trials are too small to highlight differences in either positive or negative effects. Adding a benzodiazepine to other drugs does not seem to confer clear advantage and has potential for adding unnecessary adverse effects. Sole use of older antipsychotics unaccompanied by anticholinergic drugs seems difficult to justify. Much more high quality research is needed in this area.

Rituximab for the first-line treatment of stage III-IV follicular lymphoma (review of Technology Appraisal No. 110): a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Follicular lymphoma (FL) is a non-Hodgkin's lymphoma which typically presents when the disease is at an advanced stage. The majority of patients receive first-line therapy of rituximab in combination with chemotherapy, with two-thirds receiving cyclophosphamide, vincristine and prednisolone. The clinical and cost-effectiveness of other chemotherapies in combination with rituximab in first-line therapy is not known.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically evaluate and appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of rituximab (MabThera(®), Roche Products) in combination with chemotherapy, compared with chemotherapy alone, for the first-line treatment of symptomatic stage III-IV FL.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic review of literature and an economic evaluation were carried out. Key databases [including MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations; Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL); EMBASE; The Cochrane Library, including the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) databases; Science Citation Index (SCI); and BIOSIS], plus research registers and conference proceedings, were searched for relevant studies from inception up to October 2010.

REVIEW METHODS

One reviewer assessed titles and abstracts of studies identified by the search strategy, obtained the full text of relevant papers and screened them against inclusion criteria. Data from included studies were extracted by one reviewer using a standardised data extraction form and checked by a second reviewer. The quality of included studies was assessed by one reviewer and checked by a second. A patient-level simulation model was developed to estimate the costs and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains from the perspective of the UK NHS and Personal Social Services, with costs and benefits discounted at 3.5% annually.

RESULTS

Four randomised controlled trials comparing rituximab plus chemotherapy (R-chemotherapy) with chemotherapy alone in untreated, symptomatic patients with stage III-IV FL were identified. R-chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone increased the likelihood of a response to treatment in all four trials, with no additional toxicity of clinical relevance. Overall response rates were significantly improved in all four trials, with a difference between the R-chemotherapy and chemotherapy arms of between 5% and 24%, respectively. Complete response rates were also improved, with a difference between the R-chemotherapy and chemotherapy arms of between 2% and 25%, respectively. Exploratory meta-analyses were conducted; the level of statistical heterogeneity was very high and thus we believe the response rates from the individual trials to be a more robust estimator of the efficacy of the specific R-chemotherapy regimens. Over a follow-up period of 4-5 years, R-chemotherapy significantly increased the overall survival rate compared with chemotherapy alone in three trials, although data for two trials were compromised owing to the use of additional treatments. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for the addition of rituximab to CVP (cyclophosphamide, vincristine and prednisolone), CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin/adriamycin, vincristine and prednisolone) and MCP [mitoxantrone, chlorambucil (Leukeran(®), Aspen) and prednisolone] was £7720, £10,834 and £9316 per QALY gained, respectively, when it was assumed that first-line rituximab maintenance was not used. A scenario analysis is also presented, assuming that responders to R-chemotherapy in first-line induction receive maintenance with rituximab, increasing the ICER to £14,959, £21,687 and £20,493 per QALY gained, respectively.

LIMITATIONS

These relate to the sources of data used for the effectiveness in first and second line and the assumed utility values; there is uncertainty about the effect of salvage treatment on patients who had been previously treated with an anthracycline regimen. There is uncertainty whether or not rituximab is as effective in second-line treatment when patients have been previously treated with rituximab.

CONCLUSIONS

The results from four randomised trials comparing R-chemotherapy with chemotherapy alone showed an improvement in clinical effectiveness outcomes, with minimal clinically relevant additional adverse events or toxicity. The cost per QALY gained is estimated to be < £25,000 for all three comparisons under our base-case assumption and is considerably lower if first-line rituximab maintenance is not assumed. More data on patients pre-treated with rituximab and on the effect of first-line maintenance with rituximab is required for future work.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Day hospital versus admission for acute psychiatric disorders

BACKGROUND

Inpatient treatment is an expensive way of caring for people with acute psychiatric disorders. It has been proposed that many of those currently treated as inpatients could be cared for in acute psychiatric day hospitals.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of day hospital versus inpatient care for people with acute psychiatric disorders.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (June 2010) which is based on regular searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO. We approached trialists to identify unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of day hospital versus inpatient care, for people with acute psychiatric disorders. Studies were ineligible if a majority of participants were under 18 or over 65, or had a primary diagnosis of substance abuse or organic brain disorder.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted and cross-checked data. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous data. We calculated weighted or standardised means for continuous data. Day hospital trials tend to present similar outcomes in slightly different formats, making it difficult to synthesise data. We therefore sought individual patient data so that we could re-analyse outcomes in a common format.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten trials (involving 2685 people) met the inclusion criteria. We obtained individual patient data for four trials (involving 646 people). We found no difference in the number lost to follow-up by one year between day hospital care and inpatient care (5 RCTs, n = 1694, RR 0.94 CI 0.82 to 1.08). There is moderate evidence that the duration of index admission is longer for patients in day hospital care than inpatient care (4 RCTs, n = 1582, WMD 27.47 CI 3.96 to 50.98). There is very low evidence that the duration of day patient care (adjusted days/month) is longer for patients in day hospital care than inpatient care (3 RCTs, n = 265, WMD 2.34 days/month CI 1.97 to 2.70). There is no difference between day hospital care and inpatient care for the being readmitted to in/day patient care after discharge (5 RCTs, n = 667, RR 0.91 CI 0.72 to 1.15). It is likely that there is no difference between day hospital care and inpatient care for being unemployed at the end of the study (1 RCT, n = 179, RR 0.88 CI 0.66 to 1.19), for quality of life (1 RCT, n = 1117, MD 0.01 CI -0.13 to 0.15) or for treatment satisfaction (1 RCT, n = 1117, MD 0.06 CI -0.18 to 0.30).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Caring for people in acute day hospitals is as effective as inpatient care in treating acutely ill psychiatric patients. However, further data are still needed on the cost effectiveness of day hospitals.

Early intervention for psychosis

BACKGROUND

Proponents of early intervention have argued that outcomes might be improved if more therapeutic efforts were focused on the early stages of schizophrenia or on people with prodromal symptoms. Early intervention in schizophrenia has two elements that are distinct from standard care: early detection, and phase-specific treatment (phase-specific treatment is a psychological, social or physical treatment developed, or modified, specifically for use with people at an early stage of the illness).Early detection and phase-specific treatment may both be offered as supplements to standard care, or may be provided through a specialised early intervention team. Early intervention is now well established as a therapeutic approach in America, Europe and Australasia.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of: (a) early detection; (b) phase-specific treatments; and (c) specialised early intervention teams in the treatment of people with prodromal symptoms or first-episode psychosis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (March 2009), inspected reference lists of all identified trials and reviews and contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) designed to prevent progression to psychosis in people showing prodromal symptoms, or to improve outcome for people with first-episode psychosis. Eligible interventions, alone and in combination, included: early detection, phase-specific treatments, and care from specialised early intervention teams. We accepted cluster-randomised trials but excluded non-randomised trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We reliably selected studies, quality rated them and extracted data. For dichotomous data, we estimated relative risks (RR), with the 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where possible, we calculated the number needed to treat/harm statistic (NNT/H) and used intention-to-treat analysis (ITT).

MAIN RESULTS

Studies were diverse, mostly small, undertaken by pioneering researchers and with many methodological limitations (18 RCTs, total n=1808). Mostly, meta-analyses were inappropriate. For the six studies addressing prevention of psychosis for people with prodromal symptoms, olanzapine seemed of little benefit (n=60, 1 RCT, RR conversion to psychosis 0.58 CI 0.3 to 1.2), and cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) equally so (n=60, 1 RCT, RR conversion to psychosis 0.50 CI 0.2 to 1.7). A risperidone plus CBT plus specialised team did have benefit over specialist team alone at six months (n=59, 1 RCT, RR conversion to psychosis 0.27 CI 0.1 to 0.9, NNT 4 CI 2 to 20), but this was not seen by 12 months (n=59, 1 RCT, RR 0.54 CI 0.2 to 1.3). Omega 3 fatty acids (EPA) had advantage over placebo (n=76, 1 RCT, RR transition to psychosis 0.13 CI 0.02 to 1.0, NNT 6 CI 5 to 96). We know of no replications of this finding.The remaining trials aimed to improve outcome in first-episode psychosis. Phase-specific CBT for suicidality seemed to have little effect, but the single study was small (n=56, 1 RCT, RR suicide 0.81 CI 0.05 to 12.26). Family therapy plus a specialised team in the Netherlands did not clearly affect relapse (n=76, RR 1.05 CI 0.4 to 3.0), but without the specialised team in China it may (n=83, 1 RCT, RR admitted to hospital 0.28 CI 0.1 to 0.6, NNT 3 CI 2 to 6). The largest and highest quality study compared specialised team with standard care. Leaving the study early was reduced (n=547, 1 RCT, RR 0.59 CI 0.4 to 0.8, NNT 9 CI 6 to 18) and compliance with treatment improved (n=507, RR stopped treatment 0.20 CI 0.1 to 0.4, NNT 9 CI 8 to 12). The mean number of days spent in hospital at one year were not significantly different (n=507, WMD, -1.39 CI -2.8 to 0.1), neither were data for 'Not hospitalised' by five years (n=547, RR 1.05 CI 0.90 to 1.2). There were no significant differences in numbers 'not living independently' by one year (n=507, RR 0.55 CI 0.3 to 1.2). At five years significantly fewer participants in the treatment group were 'not living independently' (n=547, RR 0.42 CI 0.21 to 0.8, NNT 19 CI 14 to 62). When phase-specific treatment (CBT) was compared with befriending no significant differences emerged in the number of participants being hospitalised over the 12 months (n=62, 1 RCT, RR 1.08 CI 0.59 to 1.99).Phase-specific treatment E-EPA oils suggested no benefit (n=80, 1 RCT, RR no response 0.90 CI 0.6 to 1.4) as did phase-specific treatment brief intervention (n=106, 1 RCT, RR admission 0.86 CI 0.4 to 1.7). Phase-specific ACE found no benefit but participants given vocational intervention were more likely to be employed (n=41, 1 RCT, RR 0.39 CI 0.21 to 0.7, NNT 2 CI 2 to 4). Phase-specific cannabis and psychosis therapy did not show benefit (n=47, RR cannabis use 1.30 CI 0.8 to 2.2) and crisis assessment did not reduce hospitalisation (n=98, RR 0.85 CI 0.6 to 1.3). Weight was unaffected by early behavioural intervention.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is emerging, but as yet inconclusive evidence, to suggest that people in the prodrome of psychosis can be helped by some interventions. There is some support for specialised early intervention services, but further trials would be desirable, and there is a question of whether gains are maintained. There is some support for phase-specific treatment focused on employment and family therapy, but again, this needs replicating with larger and longer trials.

Interventions to improve teamwork and communications among healthcare staff

BACKGROUND

Concern over the frequency of unintended harm to patients has focused attention on the importance of teamwork and communication in avoiding errors. This has led to experiments with teamwork training programmes for clinical staff, mostly based on aviation models. These are widely assumed to be effective in improving patient safety, but the extent to which this assumption is justified by evidence remains unclear.

METHODS

A systematic literature review on the effects of teamwork training for clinical staff was performed. Information was sought on outcomes including staff attitudes, teamwork skills, technical performance, efficiency and clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 1036 relevant abstracts identified, 14 articles were analysed in detail: four randomized trials and ten non-randomized studies. Overall study quality was poor, with particular problems over blinding, subjective measures and Hawthorne effects. Few studies reported on every outcome category. Most reported improved staff attitudes, and six of eight reported significantly better teamwork after training. Five of eight studies reported improved technical performance, improved efficiency or reduced errors. Three studies reported evidence of clinical benefit, but this was modest or of borderline significance in each case. Studies with a stronger intervention were more likely to report benefits than those providing less training. None of the randomized trials found evidence of technical or clinical benefit.

CONCLUSION

The evidence for technical or clinical benefit from teamwork training in medicine is weak. There is some evidence of benefit from studies with more intensive training programmes, but better quality research and cost-benefit analysis are needed.

Family intervention for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

People with schizophrenia from families that express high levels of criticism, hostility, or over involvement, have more frequent relapses than people with similar problems from families that tend to be less expressive of emotions. Forms of psychosocial intervention, designed to reduce these levels of expressed emotions within families, are now widely used.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the effects of family psychosocial interventions in community settings for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like conditions compared with standard care.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We updated previous searches by searching the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (September 2008).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised or quasi-randomised studies focusing primarily on families of people with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder that compared community-orientated family-based psychosocial intervention with standard care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently extracted data and calculated fixed-effect relative risk (RR), the 95% confidence intervals (CI) for binary data, and, where appropriate, the number needed to treat (NNT) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD).

MAIN RESULTS

This 2009-10 update adds 21 additional studies, with a total of 53 randomised controlled trials included. Family intervention may decrease the frequency of relapse (n = 2981, 32 RCTs, RR 0.55 CI 0.5 to 0.6, NNT 7 CI 6 to 8), although some small but negative studies might not have been identified by the search. Family intervention may also reduce hospital admission (n = 481, 8 RCTs, RR 0.78 CI 0.6 to 1.0, NNT 8 CI 6 to 13) and encourage compliance with medication (n = 695, 10 RCTs, RR 0.60 CI 0.5 to 0.7, NNT 6 CI 5 to 9) but it does not obviously affect the tendency of individuals/families to leave care (n = 733, 10 RCTs, RR 0.74 CI 0.5 to 1.0). Family intervention also seems to improve general social impairment and the levels of expressed emotion within the family. We did not find data to suggest that family intervention either prevents or promotes suicide.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Family intervention may reduce the number of relapse events and hospitalisations and would therefore be of interest to people with schizophrenia, clinicians and policy makers. However, the treatment effects of these trials may be overestimated due to the poor methodological quality. Further data from trials that describe the methods of randomisation, test the blindness of the study evaluators, and implement the CONSORT guidelines would enable greater confidence in these findings.

Family intervention for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

People with schizophrenia from families that express high levels of criticism, hostility, or over involvement, have more frequent relapses than people with similar problems from families that tend to be less expressive of emotions. Forms of psychosocial intervention, designed to reduce these levels of expressed emotions within families, are now widely used.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the effects of family psychosocial interventions in community settings for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like conditions compared with standard care.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We updated previous searches by searching the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (September 2008).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised or quasi-randomised studies focusing primarily on families of people with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder that compared community-orientated family-based psychosocial intervention with standard care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently extracted data and calculated fixed-effect relative risk (RR), the 95% confidence intervals (CI) for binary data, and, where appropriate, the number needed to treat (NNT) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD).

MAIN RESULTS

This 2009-10 update adds 21 additional studies, with a total of 53 randomised controlled trials included. Family intervention may decrease the frequency of relapse (n = 2981, 32 RCTs, RR 0.55 CI 0.5 to 0.6, NNT 7 CI 6 to 8), although some small but negative studies might not have been identified by the search. Family intervention may also reduce hospital admission (n = 481, 8 RCTs, RR 0.78 CI 0.6 to 1.0, NNT 8 CI 6 to 13) and encourage compliance with medication (n = 695, 10 RCTs, RR 0.60 CI 0.5 to 0.7, NNT 6 CI 5 to 9) but it does not obviously affect the tendency of individuals/families to leave care (n = 733, 10 RCTs, RR 0.74 CI 0.5 to 1.0). Family intervention also seems to improve general social impairment and the levels of expressed emotion within the family. We did not find data to suggest that family intervention either prevents or promotes suicide.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Family intervention may reduce the number of relapse events and hospitalisations and would therefore be of interest to people with schizophrenia, clinicians and policy makers. However, the treatment effects of these trials may be overestimated due to the poor methodological quality. Further data from trials that describe the methods of randomisation, test the blindness of the study evaluators, and implement the CONSORT guidelines would enable greater confidence in these findings.

Clozapine versus typical neuroleptic medication for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Long-term drug treatment of schizophrenia with typical antipsychotics has limitations: 25 to 33% of patients have illnesses that are treatment-resistant. Clozapine is an antipsychotic drug, which is claimed to have superior efficacy and to cause fewer motor adverse effects than typical drugs for people with treatment-resistant illnesses. Clozapine carries a significant risk of serious blood disorders, which necessitates mandatory weekly blood monitoring at least during the first months of treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of clozapine compared with typical antipsychotic drugs in people with schizophrenia.

SEARCH STRATEGY

For the current update of this review (March 2006) we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All relevant randomised clinical trials (RCTs).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated relative risks (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis, based on a fixed-effect model. We calculated numbers needed to treat/harm (NNT/NNH) where appropriate. For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences (WMD) again based on a fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We have included 42 trials (3950 participants) in this review. Twenty-eight of the included studies are less than 13 weeks in duration, and, overall, trials were at significant risk of bias. We found no significant difference in the effects of clozapine and typical neuroleptic drugs for broad outcomes such as mortality, ability to work or suitability for discharge at the end of the study. Clinical improvements were seen more frequently in those taking clozapine (n=1119, 14 RCTs, RR 0.72 CI 0.7 to 0.8, NNT 6 CI 5 to 8). Also, participants given clozapine had fewer relapses than those on typical antipsychotic drugs (n=1303, RR 0.62 CI 0.5 to 0.8, NNT 21 CI 15 to 49). BPRS scores showed a greater reduction of symptoms in clozapine-treated patients, (n=1145, 16 RCTs, WMD -4.22 CI -5.4 to -3.1), although the data were heterogeneous (Chi(2) 0.0001, I(2) 66%). Short-term data from the SANS negative symptom scores favoured clozapine (n=196, 5 RCTs, WMD -5.92 CI -7.8 to -4.1). We found clozapine to be more acceptable in long-term treatment than conventional antipsychotic drugs (n=982, 16 RCTs, RR 0.60 CI 0.5 to 0.7, NNT 15 CI 12 to 20). Blood problems occurred more frequently in participants receiving clozapine (3.2%) compared with those given typical antipsychotics (0%) (n=1031, 13 RCTs, RR 7.09 CI 2.0 to 25.6). Clozapine participants experienced more drowsiness, hypersalivation, or temperature increase, than those given conventional neuroleptics. However, clozapine patients experienced fewer motor adverse effects (n=1433, 18 RCTs, RR 0.58 CI 0.5 to 0.7, NNT 5 CI 4 to 6).The clinical effects of clozapine were more pronounced in participants resistant to typical neuroleptics in terms of clinical improvement (n=370, 4 RCTs, RR 0.71 CI 0.6 to 0.8, NNT 4 CI 3 to 6) and symptom reduction. Thirty-four per cent of treatment-resistant participants had a clinical improvement with clozapine treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Clozapine may be more effective in reducing symptoms of schizophrenia, producing clinically meaningful improvements and postponing relapse, than typical antipsychotic drugs - but data are weak and prone to bias. Participants were more satisfied with clozapine treatment than with typical neuroleptic treatment. The clinical effect of clozapine, however, is, at least in the short term, not reflected in measures of global functioning such as ability to leave the hospital and maintain an occupation. The short-term benefits of clozapine have to be weighed against the risk of adverse effects. Within the context of trials, the potentially dangerous white blood cell decline seems to be more frequent in children and adolescents and in the elderly than in young adults or people of middle-age.The existing trials have largely neglected to assess the views of participants and their families on clozapine. More community-based long-term randomised trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy of clozapine on global and social functioning as trials in special groups such as people with learning disabilities.

Cannabis and schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Many people with schizophrenia use cannabis and its effects on the illness are unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of cannabis use on people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like illnesses.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (April 2007) which is based on regular searches of BIOSIS, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised trials involving cannabinoids and people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like illnesses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated relative risks (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis, based on a fixed effects model. We calculated the numbers needed to treat/harm (NNT/NNH). For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences (WMD) again based on a fixed effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified one randomised trial. No significant differences were found between the Cannabis and Psychosis Therapy (CAP) intervention group and the Psychoeducaton (PE) intervention for use of cannabis at three months assessment (n=47, RR 1.04 CI 0.6 to 1.7). BPRS-extended scale scores at three months assessment (n=47, WMD -3.60 CI -12.8 to 5.6) and nine months assessment (n=47, WMD 0.80 CI -7.5 to 9.1) were non-significant between CAP and PE. We found no significant improvement in social functioning in the CAP group compared with PE (at 3 months, n=47, WMD -0.80 CI -10 to 8.4) and (at 9 months, n=47, WMD -4.70 CI -14.5 to 5.1).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

At present, there is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of cannabis/cannabinoid compounds for people suffering with schizophrenia. This review highlights the need for well designed, conducted and reported clinical trials to address the potential effects of cannabis based compounds for people with schizophrenia.

Open general medical wards versus specialist psychiatric units for acute psychoses

BACKGROUND

As international healthcare policy has moved away from treating people with severe mental illness in large inpatient psychiatric institutions, beds for people with acute psychiatric disorders are being established in specialised psychiatric units in general hospitals. In developing countries, however, limited resources mean that it is not always possible to provide discrete psychiatric units, either in general hospitals or in the community. An alternative model of admission, used in the Caribbean, is to treat the person with acute psychosis in a general hospital ward.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the outcomes for people with acute psychosis who have been admitted to open medical wards with those admitted to conventional psychiatric units.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's study-based register (April 2007). This register is compiled from searches of BIOSIS, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, LILACS, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PSYNDEX, Sociofile, and many conference proceedings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We would have included all relevant randomised or quasi-randomised trials, allocating anyone thought to be suffering from an acute psychotic episode to either acute management on general medical wards, or acute management in a specialist psychiatric unit. The primary outcomes of interest were length of stay in hospital and relapse.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we would have calculated relative risks (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis based using a fixed effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

We didnt identify any relevant randomised trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The Caribbean practice of treating people with severe mental illness on general medical wards has been influenced by socio-economic factors rather than evidence from randomised trials. This practice affords an opportunity for a well designed, well conducted and reported randomised trial, now impossible in many other settings.

Thioridazine for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Thioridazine is an antipsychotic that can still be used for schizophrenia although it is associated with the cardiac arrhythmia, torsades de pointe.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects of thioridazine for people with schizophrenia.

SEARCH STRATEGY

For this 2006 update, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (June 2006).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials comparing thioridazine with other treatments for people with schizophrenia or other psychoses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We reliably selected, quality rated and extracted data from relevant studies. For dichotomous data, we estimated relative risks (RR), with the 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where possible, we calculated the number needed to treat/harm statistic (NNT/H) on an intention-to-treat basis.

MAIN RESULTS

This review currently includes 42 RCTs with 3498 participants. When thioridazine was compared with placebo (total n=668, 14 RCTs) we found global state outcomes favoured thioridazine (n=105, 3 RCTs, RR 'no change or worse' by 6 months 0.33 CI 0.2 to 0.5, NNT of 2 CI 2 to 3). Thioridazine is sedating (n=324, 3 RCTs, RR 5.37 CI 3.2 to 9.1, NNH 4 CI 2 to 74). Generally, thioridazine did not cause more movement disorders than placebo.Twenty-seven studies (total n=2598) compared thioridazine with typical antipsychotics. We found no significant difference in global state (n=743, 11 RCTs, RR no short-term change or worse 0.98 CI 0.8 to 1.2) and medium-term assessments (n=142, 3 RCTs, RR 0.99, CI 0.6 to 1.6). We found no significant differences in the number of people leaving the study early 'for any reason' (short-term, n=1587, 19 RCTs, RR 1.07 CI 0.9 to 1.3). Extrapyramidal adverse events lower for those allocated to thioridazine (n=1082, 7 RCTs, RR use of antiparkinsonian drugs 0.45 CI 0.4 to 0.6). Thioridazine did seem associated with cardiac adverse effects (n=74, 1 RCT, RR 'any cardiovascular adverse event' 3.17 CI 1.4 to 7.0, NNH 3 CI 2 to 5). Electrocardiogram changes were significantly more frequent in the thioridazine group (n=254, 2 RCTs, RR 2.38, CI 1.6 to 3.6, NNH 4 CI 3 to 10). Six RCTs (total n=344) randomised thioridazine against atypical antipsychotics. Global state rating did not reveal any short-term difference between thioridazine and remoxipride and sulpiride (n=203, RR not improved or worse 1.00 CI 0.8 to 1.3). Limited data did not highlight differences in adverse event profiles.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although there are shortcomings, there appears to be enough consistency over different outcomes and periods to confirm that thioridazine is an antipsychotic of similar efficacy to other commonly used antipsychotics for people with schizophrenia. Its adverse events profile is similar to that of other drugs, but it may have a lower level of extrapyramidal problems and higher level of ECG changes. We would advocate the use of alternative drugs, but if its use in unavoidable, cardiac monitoring is justified.

Pimozide for schizophrenia or related psychoses

BACKGROUND

Pimozide, formulated in the 1960s, continues to be marketed for the care of people with schizophrenia or related psychoses such as delusional disorder. It has been associated with cardiotoxicity and sudden unexplained deaths. Electrocardiogram monitoring is now required before and during use.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical effects of pimozide for people with schizophrenia, non-affective psychotic mental illness and delusional disorder.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (July 2005).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought all relevant randomised clinical trials comparing pimozide with other treatments.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Working independently, we inspected citations, ordered papers, and then re-inspected and quality assessed the studies and extracted data. For homogeneous dichotomous data, we calculated the relative risk (RR), 95% confidence interval (CI), and, where appropriate, the number needed to treat (NNT) and the number needed to harm (NNH), on an intention-to-treat basis. We calculated weighted mean differences (WMD) for continuous data. We excluded data if loss to follow-up was greater than 50%.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 35 relevant studies (total n=1348), all including people with schizophrenia but none with delusional disorder. 123 people were randomised to pimozide versus placebo. Data suggest that pimozide prevents relapse (2 RCTs, n=66, RR 0.45 CI 0.2 to 0.9, NNT 4 CI 3 to 22). Compared with typical antipsychotic drugs, pimozide has similar efficacy for outcomes of change in global functioning, mental state, relapse and leaving the study early. People allocated to pimozide did not have a higher mortality than those taking other antipsychotic drugs. Pimozide was more likely than typical antipsychotic drugs to cause tremor in the short-term (6 RCTs, n=192, RR 1.6 CI 1.1 to 2.3, NNH 6 CI 3 to 44) and lead to need for antiparkinsonian medication (4 RCTs, n=124, RR 1.8 CI 1.2 to 2.6, NNH 3 CI 2 to 5) than other drugs. In the medium-term, however, pimozide was less likely to cause sedation (5 RCTs, n=231, RR 0.6 CI 0.5 to 0.9, NNH 6 CI 4 to 16).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although there are shortcomings in the data, there is enough overall consistency over different outcomes and time scales to confirm that pimozide is a drug with similar efficacy to other more commonly used antipsychotic drugs such as chlorpromazine for people with schizophrenia. There are no data to support or refute its use for those with delusional disorder.

Schizophrenia trials in China: a survey

OBJECTIVE

China's biomedical research activity is increasing and this literature is becoming more accessible online. Our aim was to survey all randomized control schizophrenia trials (RCTs) in one Chinese bibliographic database.

METHOD

Chinese Academic Journals was electronically searched for RCTs and all relevant citations were also sought on PubMed to ascertain global accessibility.

RESULTS

The search identified 3275 records, of which 982 were RCTs relevant to schizophrenia. A total of 71% (699) could be found by using English phrases. All the main body of text of the 982 papers was in Mandarin. On average, these trials involved about 100 people, with interventions and outcome measures familiar to schizophrenia trialists worldwide. Four of the 982 records (<1%) were identified on PubMed.

CONCLUSION

Those undertaking systematic reviews should search the Chinese literature for relevant material. Failing to do this will leave the results of systematic reviews prone to random error or bias, or both.

Chinese herbal medicine for schizophrenia: cochrane systematic review of randomised trials

BACKGROUND

Chinese herbal medicine has been used to treat millions of people with schizophrenia for thousands of years.

AIMS

To evaluate Chinese herbal medicine as a treatment for schizophrenia.

METHOD

A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

RESULTS

Seven trials were included. Most studies evaluated Chinese herbal medicine in combination with Western antipsychotic drugs; in these trials results tended to favour combination treatment compared with antipsychotic alone (Clinical Global Impression ;not improved/worse' n=123, RR=0.19, 95% CI 0.1-0.6, NNT=6,95% CI 5-11; n=109, Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale ;not improved/worse' RR=0.78,95% CI 0.5-1.2; n=109, Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms ;not improved/worse' RR=0.87,95% CI 0.7-1.2; n=109, Scale for the Assessment of Positive Symptoms ;not improved/worse' RR=0.69,95% CI 0.5-1.0, NNT=6 95% CI 4-162). Medium-term study attrition was significantly less for people allocated the herbal/antipsychotic mix (n=897, four RCTs, RR=0.34,95% CI 0.2-0.7, NNT=23,95% CI18-43).

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest that combining Chinese herbal medicine with antipsychotics is beneficial.

Chlorpromazine versus placebo for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Chlorpromazine, formulated in the 1950s, remains a benchmark treatment for people with schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of chlorpromazine for schizophrenia in comparison with placebo.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We updated previous searches of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Register (October 1999), Biological Abstracts (1982-1995), the Cochrane Library (1999, Issue 2), EMBASE (1980-1995), MEDLINE (1966-1995), PsycLIT (1974-1995), and the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Register (June 2002), by searching The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (January 2007). We searched references of all identified studies for further trial citations. We contacted pharmaceutical companies and authors of trials for additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing chlorpromazine with placebo for people with schizophrenia and non-affective serious/chronic mental illness irrespective of mode of diagnosis. Primary outcomes of interest were death, violent behaviours, overall improvement, relapse and satisfaction with care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently inspected citations and abstracts, ordered papers, re-inspected and quality assessed these. BT and JR extracted data. CEA and GA independently checked a 10% sample for reliability. We analysed dichotomous data using fixed effects relative risk (RR) and estimated the 95% confidence interval (CI) around this. Where possible we calculated the number needed to treat (NNT) or number needed to harm (NNH) statistics. We excluded continuous data if more than 50% of participants were lost to follow up; where continuous data were included, we analysed this data using fixed effects weighted mean difference (WMD) with a 95% confidence interval.

MAIN RESULTS

We inspected over 1000 electronic records. The review currently includes 302 excluded studies and 50 included studies. We found chlorpromazine reduces relapse over the short (n=74, 2 RCTs, RR 0.29 CI 0.1 to 0.8) and medium term (n=809, 4 RCTs, RR 0.49 CI 0.4 to 0.6) but data are heterogeneous. Longer term homogeneous data also favoured chlorpromazine (n=512, 3 RCTs, RR 0.57 CI 0.5 to 0.7, NNT 4 CI 3 to 5). We found chlorpromazine provided a global improvement in a person's symptoms and functioning (n=1121, 13 RCTs, RR 'no change/not improved' 0.80 CI 0.8 to 0.9, NNT 6 CI 5 to 8). Fewer people allocated to chlorpromazine left trials early (n=1780, 26 RCTs, RR 0.65 CI 0.5 to 0.8, NNT 15 CI 11 to 24) compared with placebo. There are many adverse effects. Chlorpromazine is clearly sedating (n=1404, 19 RCTs, RR 2.63 CI 2.1 to 3.3, NNH 5 CI 4 to 8), it increases a person's chances of experiencing acute movement disorders (n=942, 5 RCTs, RR 3.5 CI 1.5 to 8.0, NNH 32 CI 11 to 154), parkinsonism (n=1265, 12 RCTs, RR 2.01 CI 1.5 to 2.7, NNH 14 CI 9 to 28). Akathisia did not occur more often in the chlorpromazine group than placebo (n=1164, 9 RCTs, RR 0.78 CI 0.5 to 1.1). Chlorpromazine clearly causes a lowering of blood pressure with accompanying dizziness (n=1394, 16 RCTs, RR 2.37 CI 1.7 to 3.2, NNH 11 CI 7 to 21) and considerable weight gain (n=165, 5 RCTs, RR 4.92 CI 2.3 to 10.4, NNH 2 CI 2 to 3).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results of this review confirm much that clinicians and recipients of care already know but aim to provide quantification to support clinical impression. Chlorpromazine's global position as a 'benchmark' treatment for psychoses is not threatened by the findings of this review. Chlorpromazine, in common use for half a century, is a well established but imperfect treatment. Judicious use of this best available evidence should lead to improved evidence-based decision making by clinicians, carers and patients.

Early intervention for psychosis

BACKGROUND

Proponents of early intervention have argued that outcome might be improved if more therapeutic efforts were focused on the early stages of schizophrenia or on people with prodromal symptoms. Early intervention in schizophrenia has two elements that are distinct from standard care: early detection and phase-specific treatment. Both elements may be offered as supplements to standard care, or may be provided through a specialised early intervention team. Early intervention is now well established as a therapeutic approach in America, Europe and Australasia, but it is unclear how far early detection, phase-specific treatments, and the use of early intervention teams are underpinned by evidence of effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of: (a) early detection; (b) phase-specific treatments; and (c) specialised early intervention teams in the treatment of people with prodromal symptoms or first episode psychosis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched CINAHL (1982-2002), The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (November 2001), The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Register (July 2003), EMBASE (1980-2002), MEDLINE (1966-2002), PsycINFO (1967-2002), reference lists and contacted the European First Episode Network (2003). For the 2006 update we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials designed to prevent progression to psychosis in people showing prodromal symptoms, or to improve outcome for people with first episode psychosis. Eligible interventions, alone and in combination, included early detection, phase-specific treatments, and care from specialised early intervention teams. We accepted cluster-randomised trials but excluded non-randomised trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We reliably selected studies, quality rated them and extracted data. For dichotomous data, we estimated relative risks (RR), with the 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where possible, we calculated the number needed to treat/harm statistic (NNT/H) and used intention-to-treat analysis (ITT).

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven studies with a total of 941 participants. Six studies were small with numbers of participants ranging between 56 and 83, and one study randomised 547 people. None of the studies had similar interventions and therefore they were analysed separately. One small Australian trial (n=59) was concerned with a phase-specific intervention (low dose risperidone and cognitive behavioural therapy) for people with prodromal symptoms. This group were significantly less likely to develop psychosis at a six month follow up than people who only received care from a specialised team which did not involve phase-specific treatment (n=59, RR 0.27 CI 0.1 to 0.9, NNT 4 CI 2 to 20). This effect was not significant at 12 month follow up (n=59, 1 RCT, RR 0.54 CI 0.2 to 1.3). A UK-based study (EDIE) randomised 60 people with prodromal symptoms, to cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) or a monitoring group. Only two outcomes were reported: leaving the study early and transition to psychosis, both sets of data were non-significant. A Chinese trial used a phase-specific intervention (family therapy) plus out patient care trial for people in their first episode of psychosis and found reduced admission rates care compared with those who received only outpatient care (n=83, RR 0.28 CI 0.1 to 0.6, NNT 3 CI 2 to 6). The applicability of this finding was, however, questionable. One Dutch study (n=76) comparing phase-specific intervention (family therapy) plus specialised team with specialised team for people in their first episode of schizophrenia found no difference between intervention and control groups at 12 months for the outcome of relapse (n=76, RR 1.05 CI 0.4 to 3.0). The large Scandinavian study (n=547) allocated people with first episode schizophrenia to integrated treatment (assertive community treatment plus family therapy, social skills training and a modified medication regime) or standard care. Global state outcome GAF significantly favoured integrated treatment (n=419, WMD -3.71 CI -6.7 to -0.7) by one year, but by two years data were non-significant. Rates of attrition were significantly lower (n=547, RR 0.59 CI 0.4 to 0.8, NNT 9 CI 6 to 18) for integrated treatment by one and two year follow-up. PRIME (USA) was the only double blind study and allocated people with prodromal symptoms to olanzapine or placebo. No significant differences were found between olanzapine and placebo in preventing conversion to psychosis by about 12 months (n=60, RR 0.58 CI 0.3 to 1.2). Clinical Global Impression change scores 'severity of illness' were equivocal by 12 months. Scale of Prodromal Symptoms (SOPS) scores were also equivocal and the PANSS, total, positive and negative outcomes were non-significant. There were no significant differences between the olanzapine and placebo group on adverse effects rating scales - SAS, BAS and AIMS scores; Weight gain was significantly higher in the olanzapine group (n=59, WMD 7.63 CI 4.0 to 11.2) by 12 months. Finally one more Australian study included people in their first episode of psychosis who were acutely suicidal and allocated people to phase-specific cognitively orientated therapy or standard care. Outcome data for leaving the study early and suicide were equivocal.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We identified insufficient trials to draw any definitive conclusions. The substantial international interest in early intervention offers an opportunity to make major positive changes in psychiatric practice, but making the most of this opportunity requires a concerted international programme of research to address key unanswered questions.

Zotepine for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Zotepine is a relatively new antipsychotic often used for the treatment of people with schizophrenia. It is claimed to be particularly effective for negative symptoms.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of zotepine compared with placebo, typical and other atypical antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia and related psychoses.

SEARCH STRATEGY

For the 2006 update we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register of trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials comparing zotepine with other treatments for people with schizophrenia or other psychoses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently inspected citations and abstracts, ordered papers, re-inspected these and assessed their quality. For homogenous dichotomous data we calculated the relative risk (RR), 95% confidence intervals (CI) and, where appropriate, numbers needed to treat/harm (NNT/H) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences (WMD). We inspected all data for heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

The review currently includes 11 studies with 966 participants. Most outcomes were short term (4-12 weeks). We found no data for outcomes such as relapse, time in hospital, satisfaction with care and day-to-day functioning. Compared with placebo, mental state ratings favoured zotepine (n=106, 1 RCT, RR No 20% decrease in BPRS 0.44 CI 0.3 to 0.7, NNT 3 CI 2 to 6) using the last observation carried forward method. For the comparison with typical drugs, limited data suggest that zotepine may be as effective as these older medications. Mental state measures of 'no clinically important improvement' favour zotepine when compared with other active drugs (n=356, 4 RCTs, RR 0.77 CI 0.7 to 0.9, NNT 7 CI 4 to 22). About one third of people in both the zotepine and control groups left the studies before trial completion. Zotepine may result in less movement disorder adverse effects than typical antipsychotic drugs. Trials have not highlighted clear differences between zotepine and other atypical drugs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Zotepine may be a valuable addition to the class of atypical antipsychotic drugs. However, more data from existing studies is urgently needed to increase confidence in the findings of this review. In addition to this, new data from well planned, conducted and reported long term pragmatic randomised trials are needed. Otherwise clinical use of zotepine will be based upon speculation of short explanatory trials for everyday practice.

Anticholinergics for neuroleptic-induced acute akathisia

BACKGROUND

Neuroleptic-induced akathisia is one of the most common and distressing early-onset adverse effects of first generation 'typical' antipsychotic drugs. It is associated with poor compliance with treatment, and thus, ultimately, with an increased risk of relapse. We assessed the role of anticholinergic drugs as an adjunct therapy to standard antipsychotic medication in the pharmacological treatment of this adverse effect.

OBJECTIVES

To review anticholinergic drugs for neuroleptic-induced acute akathisia.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (October 1999), Biological Abstracts (1982-1999), CINAHL (1982-1999), Cochrane Library (Issue 4 1999), EMBASE (1980-1999), LILACS (1982-1999), MEDLINE (1966-1999) and PsycLIT (1974-1999). References of all identified studies were inspected for more trials and we contacted first authors. Each included study was sought as a citation on the Science Citation Index database. For this 2005-6 update, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (July 2005).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials of adjunctive anticholinergic drugs in addition to antipsychotic medication compared with placebo, for people with neuroleptic-induced acute akathisia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We quality assessed and extracted data independently. We calculated the fixed effects relative risk (RR), the 95% confidence intervals (CI) and, where appropriate, the number needed to treat (NNT) for homogeneous dichotomous data on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences (WMD).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified no relevant randomised controlled trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

At present, there is no reliable evidence to support or refute the use of anticholinergics for people suffering from neuroleptic-induced acute akathisia. Akathisia is a distressing movement disorder that remains highly prevalent in people with schizophrenia, both in the developed and developing world. This review highlights the need for well designed, conducted and reported clinical trials to address the claims of open studies as regards the effects of the anticholinergic group of drugs for akathisia.

Non-neuroleptic catecholaminergic drugs for neuroleptic-induced tardive dyskinesia

BACKGROUND

Tardive dyskinesia (TD) is a disabling movement disorder associated with the prolonged use of neuroleptic medication. Several strategies have been examined in the treatment of TD. Currently, however, there is no clear evidence of the effectiveness of these drugs in TD and they have been associated with many side effects. One particular strategy would be to use pharmaceutical agents which are known to influence the catecholaminergic system at various junctures.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether catecholaminergic drugs for people with schizophrenia or other chronic mental illnesses are associated with a reduction in neuroleptic-induced tardive dyskinesia.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (January 1996), Biological Abstracts (1982-1995), EMBASE (1980-1995), LILACS (1982-1996), MEDLINE (1966-1995) and PsycLIT (1974-1995). We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register again in December 2002 and September 2005. We also searched references of all relevant studies for further trial citations and contacted principal authors of trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected studies if they were randomised controlled trials focusing on people with schizophrenia or other chronic mental illnesses who also suffered from neuroleptic-induced tardive dyskinesia. We compared the use of catecholaminergic interventions versus placebo or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently extracted data. For homogenous dichotomous data, we calculated the random effects, relative risk (RR), and 95% confidence interval (CI) and, where appropriate, the numbers needed to treat (NNT) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences (WMD).

MAIN RESULTS

We excluded 20 studies, mainly due to an inability to extract data from the first arm of the study crossover. One included study has shown that patients on placebo were no more likely to leave the study early than those on tiapride (n=24). The other included study (n=35) also reported equivocal data (RR 5.28 CI 0.3 to 102.6) for leaving the study early when participants were randomised to either celiprolol or placebo. However, in both studies, sample size was limited.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although there has been a large amount of research in this area, most studies were excluded due to inherent problems in the nature of their crossover designs. Usually data are not reported before the crossover and the nature of TD and its likely response to treatments makes it imprudent to use this data. The review provides little usable information for service users or providers and more well designed and reported studies are indicated.

Neuroleptic reduction and/or cessation and neuroleptics as specific treatments for tardive dyskinesia

BACKGROUND

Since the 1950s neuroleptic medication has been extensively used to treat people with chronic mental illnesses such as schizophrenia. These drugs, however, have been also associated with a wide range of adverse effects, including movement disorders such as tardive dyskinesia (TD). Various strategies have been examined to reduce a person's cumulative exposure to neuroleptics. These studies include dose reduction, intermittent dosing strategies such as drug holidays, and neuroleptic cessation.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether a reduction or cessation of neuroleptic drugs is associated with a reduction in TD, for people with schizophrenia (or other chronic mental illnesses) who have existing TD. Our secondary objective was to determine whether the use of specific neuroleptics for similar groups of people could be a treatment for TD that was already established.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We updated previous searches of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Groups Register (1997), Biological Abstracts (1982-1997), EMBASE (1980-1997), LILACS (1982-1996), MEDLINE (1966-1997), PsycLIT (1974-1997), and SCISEARCH (1997) by searching the Cochrane Schizophrenia Groups Register (July 2003). We searched references of all identified studies for further trial citations. We also contacted the principal authors of trials for further unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included reports if they assessed people with schizophrenia or other chronic mental illnesses who had established neuroleptic-induced TD, and had been randomly allocated to (a) neuroleptic maintenance versus neuroleptic cessation (placebo or no intervention), (b) neuroleptic maintenance versus neuroleptic reduction (including intermittent strategies), and (c) specific neuroleptics for the treatment of TD versus, placebo or intervention. A post hoc decision was made to broaden comparison (c) to include specific neuroleptics versus other neuroleptics for the treatment of TD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We (KSW, JR) independently inspected citations and, where possible, abstracts, ordered papers, and re-inspected and quality assessed these and extracted data. We analysed dichotomous data using random effects relative risk (RR) and estimated the 95% confidence interval (CI). Where possible we calculated the number needed to treat (NNT) or number needed to harm statistic (NNH). We excluded continuous data if more than 50% of people were lost to follow up, but, where possible, we calculated the weighted mean difference (WMD). It was assumed that those leaving the study early showed no improvement.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five trials and excluded 102. One small two week study (n=18), reported on the 'masking' effects of molindone and haloperidol on TD, which favoured haloperidol (RR 3.44 CI 1.1 to 5.8). Two (total n=17) studies found no reduction in TD associated with neuroleptic reduction (RR 0.38 CI 0.1 to 1.0). One study (n=20) found no significant differences in oral dyskinesia (RR 2.45 CI 0.3 to 19.7) when neuroleptics were compared as a specific treatment for TD. Dyskinesia was found to be not significantly different (n=32, RR 0.62 CI 0.3 to 1.26) between quetiapine and haloperidol when these neuroleptics were used as specific treatments for TD, although the need for additional neuroleptics was significantly lower in the quetiapine group (n=47, RR 0.49 CI 0.2 to 1.0) than in those given haloperidol.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Limited data from small studies using neuroleptic reduction or specific neuroleptic drugs as treatments for TD did not provide any convincing evidence of the value of these approaches. There is a need for larger trials of a longer duration in order to fully investigate this area.

Acupuncture for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Acupuncture has been shown to be a relatively safe health care intervention with few adverse effects. In contrast ,antipsychotic drugs can have seriously disabling adverse effects. However, the benefits of acupuncture in the treatment of schizophrenia are unclear, and further evidence is needed to inform clinicians and people with schizophrenia of its efficacy in the treatment of schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate acupuncture for people with schizophrenia and related psychoses.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We (JR, JX) undertook electronic searches of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register (April 2005). We inspected reference lists and contacted the first author of each included study.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all relevant randomised controlled trials involving people with schizophrenia-like illnesses, allocated to acupuncture, electro-acupuncture, laser-acupuncture, placebo, no treatment, or antipsychotic drugs produced by pharmaceutical companies were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently extracted the data. For homogeneous dichotomous data, the fixed effects relative risk (RR), the 95% confidence intervals (CI) and, where appropriate, the number needed to treat (NNT) were calculated on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences with 95% CI.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five trials. Two trials comparing acupuncture to antipsychotics were equivocal for global state and leaving the study early. Extrapyramidal adverse events were significantly lower in the acupuncture group (n=21, RR 0.05 CI 0.0 to 0.8, NNT 2 CI 2 to 8). Four out of the five trials also compared acupuncture combined with antipsychotics to antipsychotics alone. Global state outcomes and leaving the study early were equivocal. BPRS endpoint data (short term) favoured the combined acupuncture and antipsychotic group (n=109, RR -4.31 CI -7.0 to -1.6), although dichotomised BPRS data 'not improved' confounded this outcome with equivocal data. Depression scores HAMD (n=42, WMD -10.41 CI -12.8 to -8.0), HAMD 'not improved' (n=42, RR 0.17 CI 0.1 to 0.5, NNT 2 CI 2 to 3) and ZDS (n=42, WMD -24.25 CI -28.0 to -20.5) significantly favoured the combined acupuncture/antipsychotic treatment group, although results were from single, small studies. Treatment emergent adverse events scores were significantly lower in the acupuncture/antipsychotic group (n=40, WMD -0.50 CI -0.9 to -0.1), again from a single, small study.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found insufficient evidence to recommend the use of acupuncture for people with schizophrenia. The numbers of participants and the blinding of acupuncture were both inadequate, and more comprehensive and better designed studies are needed to determine the effects of acupuncture for schizophrenia.

Benzodiazepines alone or in combination with antipsychotic drugs for acute psychosis

BACKGROUND

Acute psychotic illness, especially when associated with agitated or violent behaviour, can require urgent pharmacological tranquillisation or sedation. In several countries, clinicians often use benzodiazepines (either alone or in combination with antipsychotics) for this outcome.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the effects of benzodiazepines, alone or in combination with antipsychotics, when compared to placebo or antipsychotics, to control disturbed behaviour and reduce psychotic symptoms.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register (October 2002 and April 2005), inspected reference lists of included and excluded studies and contacted authors of relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials comparing benzodiazepines, alone or in combination with antipsychotics, with placebo or sole use of antipsychotics, for people with acute psychotic illnesses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We reliably selected studies, quality assessed them and extracted data. For binary outcomes we calculated standard estimates of relative risk (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI), and weighted number needed to treat or harm (NNT/NNH) statistics. For continuous outcomes we estimated a weighted mean difference between groups. If heterogeneity was found, we used a random effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eleven studies with a total of 648 participants. When comparing benzodiazepines with placebo, sedation was equally prevalent (n=102, 1 RCT, RR 1.67 CI 0.4 to 6.6), however, fewer people allocated lorazepam remained excited at 24 hours (n=102, RR 0.62 CI 0.4 to 1.0, NNT 5 CI 3 to 59). The lorazepam and placebo group experienced similar non-significant, low levels of adverse effects. In the comparison of benzodiazepines versus use of antipsychotics without use of anticholinergics/antihistamines, people allocated benzodiazepines did not clearly need additional medication compared with those given antipsychotics (n=216, 2 RCTs, RR 1.28 CI 0.5 to 3.2). Numbers sedated were also equivocal between groups (n=324, 6 RCTs, RR 0.76 CI 0.5 to 1.2) as were mental state ratings. Extrapyramidal symptoms were significantly higher in the antipsychotic treatment group (n=391, 7 RCTs, RR 0.17 CI 0.1 to 0.4, NNT 6 CI 2 to 17). Two trials (total n=83) comparing lorazepam plus haloperidol with lorazepam alone found no clear difference for the need of additional medication (n=83, 2 RCTs, RR 1.02 CI 0.8 to 1.3) or 'not improved' at one hour (n=20, 1 RCT, RR 1.47 CI 0.66 to 3.25). There was no difference in the incidence of extrapyramidal symptoms (n=83, 2 RCTs, RR 1.94 CI 0.2 to 20.3). Finally when the benzodiazepine plus antipsychotic combination was compared with antipsychotics alone (2 RCTs, n=95) there was no difference between groups in the need for additional medications (n=67, 1 RCT, RR 0.95 CI 0.8 to 1.2) or for mental state measures. Extrapyramidal symptoms were significantly lower for people receiving both benzodiazepines and antipsychotics compared with those receiving antipsychotics alone (n=95, 2 RCTs, RR 0.45 CI 0.2 to 0.9, NNH 2 CI 1 to 5). There was no significant difference in the number of participants unfit for early discharge (n=28, 1 RCT, RR 0.90 CI 0.54 to 1.5).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient data from these studies to support or refute the use of benzodiazepines with or without antipsychotics where emergency drugs are needed. The sole use of older antipsychotics unaccompanied by anticholinergic drugs may be problematic, but studies in this review are not large enough to identify any serious adverse effects of benzodiazepines such as respiratory depression. Larger, more informative studies are needed before definite conclusions can be drawn as to the efficacy of benzodiazapines.

Chinese herbal medicine for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) was the main form of treatment in China for psychiatric illnesses until the development of antipsychotic drugs in the 1950's. Antipsychotic drugs have become the primary intervention for schizophrenia, although herbal medicines can still form part of the treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To review Chinese herbal medicine, used alone or as part of a TCM approach, for people with schizophrenia and related psychoses.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We undertook electronic searches of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register (December 2003), the Traditional Chinese Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval Database (TCMLARS) (October 2003), Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM) (December 2003), China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database (May 2004), Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) (December 2003). We contacted the Chinese Cochrane Centre, the Cochrane Complementary Medicine Field and first authors of included studies and inspected reference lists for additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all relevant randomised controlled trials involving people with schizophrenia-like illnesses, allocated to Chinese herbal medicine, including any Chinese herbs (single or mixture), compared with placebo/no treatment or antipsychotic drugs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently extracted data and calculated fixed effects relative risk (RR), the 95% confidence intervals (CI) for homogeneous dichotomous data, and, where appropriate, the number needed to treat (NNT) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences (WMD).

MAIN RESULTS

Only one small trial of the seven included studies truly evaluated TCM for schizophrenia. The other trials evaluated Chinese herbs for schizophrenia. We found one study comparing Chinese herbal medicine with antipsychotic drugs. Data for the global state outcome 'no change/worse' favoured people allocated to antipsychotic medication (n=90, RR 1.88 CI 1.2 to 2.9, NNH 4 CI 2 to 12). Six trials compared Chinese herbal medicine in combination with antipsychotic with antipsychotic drugs alone. One trial found global state 'not improved/worse' favoured the herbal medicine/antipsychotic combination (n=123, RR 0.19 CI 0.1 to 0.6, NNT 6 CI 5 to 11). Two studies (n=103) also found short-term data from the Clinical Global Impression scale favoured the herbal medicine plus antipsychotic group (WMD -0.46 CI -0.9 to -0.1) compared with those given only antipsychotics. Significantly fewer people in the experimental group left the study early compared with those given antipsychotics alone (n=1004, 6 RCTs, RR 0.30 CI 0.16 to 0.58, NNT 21 CI 18 to 35). Reports of constipation were significantly lower in the treatment group compared to those receiving antipsychotics (n=67, 1 RCT, RR 0.03 CI 0.0 to 0.5, NNH 2 CI 2 to 4).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Chinese herbal medicines, given in a Western biomedical context, may be beneficial for people with schizophrenia when combined with antipsychotics. Traditional Chinese medicine is also under-evaluated, but results from one pioneering study that attempted to evaluate TCM should encourage further trials.